Bit of a clumsy tag for a post, I know. But the basic idea is this.

Everyone knows that the major religions taught some things that turned out to be dead wrong. There was plenty of agitation for geocentrism at certain points in Catholic Church history, for instance. Those who took the biblical creation story literally and determined the age of the earth from the number of generations set out in the Hebrew Bible, concluding at a number such as 6,000 years, have taken something of a beating, as have those who have denied the theory of evolution.

I would also argue that some major moral precepts taught by churches have turned out to be wrong too. A biblical justification for slavery was openly advocated by some churches (though, admirably, completely opposed by others). Racial segregation was mandatory, according to both the Southern Baptists and the Mormons for many years. I would argue that those Muslim factions that now teach that it is one's duty to God to make war on infidels are similarly dead wrong. Prohibitions on homosexuality aren't looking divinely inspired these days, and neither is the Catholic Church's bans on condoms and divorce, at least as it concerns AIDS in Africa.

Most religions taught, and many still teach, that the genders are unequal. That women must submit to their husbands. That a husbands demands for sex cannot constitute rape.

Mormons and Muslims taught, and in some cases still teach, that polygyny (and not polyandry) is justifiable and Godly.

These are all what I am calling "peripheral claims" of religions. In other words, if you are a Christian, it is possible to reject all of this and still believe in a personal God, who sent a son to earth who was crucified and resurrected, and who would be the savior of humankind. If you are a Muslim, it's possible to reject these peripheral claims and still believe that there is no God but Allah, that Muhammad was his messenger, and that faith in God requires prayer facing Mecca five times a day, a pilgrimage, etc. If you are a Mormon, it's possible to reject these peripheral claims and still believe that Joseph Smith received and translated the golden plates, that you can be sealed to your spouse for time and eternity, etc.

So I am not claiming any sort of logical impossibility here.

Rather, my claim is narrower-- that the fact that so many religious teachings have turned out to be false casts doubt on the correctness of the remaining teachings. I would argue this is the case for a few reasons. First, religions are often premised on their holy books, leaders, and prophets being inspired by God. If they believed and taught incorrect things, that would cast grave doubt on the hypothesis of divine inspiration. Second, as a general rule, ANYONE, whether or not claiming divine inspiration, is more likely to be incorrect about other things if he or she is shown to be incorrect about some things. Third, while we may NOW consider such teachings peripheral, at one time many of these things were considered central. The Catholic Church thought geocentrism was so central that they placed Galileo under house arrest, and did not admit its error for centuries. The Southern Baptists helped fuel a civil war over slavery and preached massive resistance to segregation. Many churches now label the cause for gay rights not only to be wrong, but to be a serious infringement on their right to practice their religion. It's easy to look BACK on these things and say "well, they weren't central to the faith", but that doesn't mean they weren't central to the faith at the time.

"many religious teachings have turned out to be false"

good luck showing that. Even things like claiming that Christians believed that the earth is 6000 years old you'll get Christians who say: "thats not what the bible *really* says, and anyone who thinks that is wrong, etc, etc" or "there were Christians from the beginning (find a few out of thousands) that didn't take the Genesis story literally!".

Continue with any "religious teaching" that has turned out to be false.

Basically, any teaching that *religion* has made that has turned out to be false, is false because those religious people misinterpreted their holy book.

Finally, just because you think something is "wrong" (like condoms/AIDs handling in Africa) i would happy to link you to threads where Catholics (like Stu/Jerok) will adamantly defend that the Catholic Church is 100% correct and consistent with their approach.

Not only that, downright mutually contradictory. I refer especially to non-Biblical doctrines passed off as Christian.

The "delayed reward" makes it less likely also.

• No first-deposit bonus.
  
• No rakeback.
  
• No freerolls.

You can show it, it just won't be acknowledged by theists.

Here is your fallacy:

Claims in religion tends to be false. Therefore, every claim has to be false, no further investigation needed.

We're all:

Just like the last thread, I would recommend that you (and others) stop thinking that identifying alleged logical fallacies is the same thing as answering arguments, especially given the careful, limited nature of the claims made in the post ("So I am not claiming any sort of logical impossibility here. Rather, my claim is narrower-- that the fact that so many religious teachings have turned out to be false casts doubt on the correctness of the remaining teachings."), which were explained by reasoning ("First, religions are often premised on their holy books, leaders, and prophets being inspired by God. If they believed and taught incorrect things, that would cast grave doubt on the hypothesis of divine inspiration. Second, as a general rule, ANYONE, whether or not claiming divine inspiration, is more likely to be incorrect about other things if he or she is shown to be incorrect about some things. Third, while we may NOW consider such teachings peripheral, at one time many of these things were considered central.").

If an argument is fallacious, it doesn't need answering. DUCY?

Lol. He went out of his way to explain that this is not at all what he is doing.

Even though, that is what happened. It's like saying, "excuse me, sir, I don't mean to be rude, but GTFO!"

If god exists we're clearly not supposed to treat holy books like an "idiot's guide to...." People who do treat them like that have consistently turned out to be wrong. If god doesn't exist it's not surprising holy books aren't very accurate.

Any conclusion as to which explanation is "most likely" is based on something other than your argument. Preconceived notions, presumably.

My question would be, how do you differentiate between what a particular religion claims and what a person who associates themselves with a religion claims?

Religions don't make claims anymore than a cake recipe makes claims. Someone has to say, " it say's here .... " for there to be a claim.
Like a cake recipe, it's just ink on paper or nicks in a tablet until somebody claims "it says here... ".

self-owned lulz

So anyone can say anything and it becomes a claim of said religion? Really? You think that makes sense?

I predict that within my lifetime there will be a major movement to form a religion that dispenses with almost all of the specifics of present day religions. Theists will realize that the squabbles amongst themselves are making it all that much easier for atheists to discredit them and that their only hope to be taken seriously by future generations will be to come together to embrace their god in a much more general way than they do now.

I would recommend that you stop expecting arguments based on logical fallacies to not end up in a trainwreck.

Religions don't make claims, people do.
Try to come up with an example of a religion making a claim.

There are countless millions who are not aware of any flaws in religious "Holy Books" or how they were created (most of Central and South America is one easy example). Even in the "relatively" informed environment of RGT, where we routinely illuminate the known fabrications, most "persons of faith" cannot bring themselves to mouth the words "It is all man-made".

Guilt and Fear are still powerful forces that keep most "believers" in formation.

Guys, if you really think that labeling something a logical fallacy is a substitute for actually answering an argument, than you may get an A in formal logic but you flunked every other class in college.

Here's an example. "If I hear Glenn Beck make a factual claim, I look it up. He's unreliable." That's an ad hominem argument. It's also completely valid.

Another example. "A lot of scientists happen to be atheists. Therefore, even though I don't know my daughter's boyfriend's religion, because he is a scientist, I will sure not to invite him to come to church on Sunday with us because if he is atheist, he might be uncomfortable." That's the fallacy of composition. It's also completely valid.

Really, formal logic is a wonderful thing. It is also not the be-all and end-all of evaluating arguments. MANY things are true despite falling within one logical fallacy or another.

Let's try and restart this thread. Believers, refute my arguments without once referring to logical fallacies. Really, we know you passed logic class. It's irrelevant to this discussion.

This, by the way, is wrong. It's fair to say that Christianity-- NOT just individual Christians-- claims that the resurrection happened. And that Catholicism-- NOT just individual Catholics-- claims the trinitarian nature of God. And Mormonism-- NOT just individual Mormons-- advocated polygamy and racial discrimination in the past. And Scientology-- NOT just individual scientologists-- teaches the story of Xenu.

As if debunking flimsy nonsense on the basis of its logical fallacies only happens in formal logic.

Lol, no.

The problem, as was mentioned elsewhere, is that you're taking a "peripheral claim" as you understand it, breaking it down, and then claiming that this has an impact on the central claim.

Now, do you see how this doesn't work? If you want progress, look at the central claim.

Actually, it's not wrong, it's merely the way things must be simply by the nature of communication. It's nothing new or deep.
Notice your way of putting it. You are claiming it's "fair to say".
'The religion' didn't do anything while you did that. It actually is just individual christians that claim X or Y is what 'the Word' actually means ... who/what else is making the claim?

Nope, it just li'l ol' you ( like the rest of us) making a claim based on either -
a) what you personally think certain statements mean.
or,
b) what the majority who call themselves X claim certain statements mean and you're going along with it and hoping they are right. ( even though they may and/or have changed their minds on some pretty bid issues. shrug).
How can it be otherwise?

Ism's change as do claims about them. If there is one thing we've learned it's that Current Majority is hardly the absolute reference point.
Is Communism ala Marx, or is Communism ala Castro?
Has geocentric universes gone out of fashion in some churches? It's quite possible to be a christian and not believe jesus resurrected, it'd be rather surprising if some don't believe that already.

We don't have a magic stone with pictographs that can't be misinterpreted ( as if that would help) and we can't absolutely know what Wxy means, all we share is our personal interpretation of it.

That's not even an argument.

This sentence seems to imply that you define "validity" by whether you think the conclusion is true. Is this a correct characterization of your use of the word?