Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

The worst thing about religion

Page 17 of 33 [ 517 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 ... 33  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

corroonb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377
Location: Ireland

19 Aug 2008, 4:46 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Popularity is a good reason to believe something. Experiences can be as a number of people find their experience with a god to be positive. Apologetics can be considered a good reason. Being taught by an authority can be a good reason. It goes on and on, besides, you say "good reason" without really making a very strong epistemological argument. How are we to define good reason.



Popularity is not a good reason to believe in anything. You are being a hypocrite here and arguing fallaciously as you seem wont to do with disturbing regularity.

YOU said in another thread that the popularity of government was no reason for the government to exist. Government is popular so you have good reason not to be anarchic. If you follow your own logic, you cannot be a anarchist, if government is popular.

The only solution here is that YOU are wrong.

Good reason is empirical evidence. Only an encounter with god could convince me of his existence.



Last edited by corroonb on 19 Aug 2008, 4:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.

benjimanbreeg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,515

19 Aug 2008, 4:46 pm

Phagocyte wrote:
benjimanbreeg wrote:
Maybe, but golf is probably the biggest mental test you can face, in terms of any sport or activity. You are not just fighting against the weather, the golf course, and opponents, your fighting against yourself. Every even takes a lot of dedication.


I think I would agree with this, golf definitely seems like a "thinking man's sport," has requires the consideration of many different factors, most notable perhaps would be physical dexterity. This is reason why, unlike sports that involve raw more strength, I would be interested in learning how to play.

Have you been playing for long?


:? you've changed your tune

about 5 years



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Aug 2008, 4:47 pm

corroonb wrote:
I like that because I don't agree with your ideas that I am "ignorant" or "stupid". Very amusing ad hominem. I consider you to be insane and I think you have demonstrated that here and elsewhere.
Who are you referring to? Me? I think you must be insane, because I simply stated that people, as a general group, are too pathetic/stupid/whatever, to ever be persuaded.

I like the fact that you carry the weight of the medical community with you. Gotta love that capability.

Quote:
Why believe in god? Is there any reason for this belief?

I've answered that.

Quote:
I don't deny the existence of God. I think the concept is essentially worthless. So worthless that it's barely worth discussing. If God does not interfere, advise, help, then why does he even exist? Does he have any effect on the world? If he exists, are natural disasters his fault?

Ok. If you think that, then why do you bother discussing that? Not only that, but let's see, God is argued to be necessary for morality, God is argued to be necessary for an afterlife, and God is argued to be the first cause, all of which prove that some form of God has some value to people existing.
Quote:
I can assume that the theists will describe me as "stupid" and "ignorant" because all they have to defend their insanity are insults. It is pathetic and embarrassing for all of us.

Umm.... right? Only Orwell is a theist in this thread I think. I mean, I am not sure about twoshots, but it would not surprise me if he were agnostic or atheistic and simply hates e-atheists.



Phagocyte
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,757

19 Aug 2008, 4:50 pm

benjimanbreeg wrote:

:? you've changed your tune

about 5 years


Yes, I shouldn't get so worked up. And perhaps it will encourage you to change yours as well.


_________________
Un-ban Chever! Viva La Revolucion!


corroonb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377
Location: Ireland

19 Aug 2008, 4:51 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
corroonb wrote:
I like that because I don't agree with your ideas that I am "ignorant" or "stupid". Very amusing ad hominem. I consider you to be insane and I think you have demonstrated that here and elsewhere.
Who are you referring to? Me? I think you must be insane, because I simply stated that people, as a general group, are too pathetic/stupid/whatever, to ever be persuaded.

I like the fact that you carry the weight of the medical community with you. Gotta love that capability.

Quote:
Why believe in god? Is there any reason for this belief?

I've answered that.

Quote:
I don't deny the existence of God. I think the concept is essentially worthless. So worthless that it's barely worth discussing. If God does not interfere, advise, help, then why does he even exist? Does he have any effect on the world? If he exists, are natural disasters his fault?

Ok. If you think that, then why do you bother discussing that? Not only that, but let's see, God is argued to be necessary for morality, God is argued to be necessary for an afterlife, and God is argued to be the first cause, all of which prove that some form of God has some value to people existing.
Quote:
I can assume that the theists will describe me as "stupid" and "ignorant" because all they have to defend their insanity are insults. It is pathetic and embarrassing for all of us.

Umm.... right? Only Orwell is a theist in this thread I think. I mean, I am not sure about twoshots, but it would not surprise me if he were agnostic or atheistic and simply hates e-atheists.


As I've already stated, there is currently no empirical evidence for the existence of god. Therefore I conclude that god doesn't exist until such evidence is forthcoming. If god exists, then one can logically prove he exists. I do not have to prove that he exists. Thiests do or their faith is a delusion.



Last edited by corroonb on 19 Aug 2008, 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

benjimanbreeg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,515

19 Aug 2008, 4:52 pm

Phagocyte wrote:
benjimanbreeg wrote:

:? you've changed your tune

about 5 years


Yes, I shouldn't get so worked up. And perhaps it will encourage you to change yours as well.


not about religion. And not to you unless you apologise.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Aug 2008, 4:52 pm

corroonb wrote:
It being an common delusion means nothing. Very poor argument. Argument from authority is a fallacy. As is ad hominem; implying that I am not intelligent. It is unreasonable to believe something if you have no experience of it. It is unreasonable and irrational.

No, it means a lot. Argument from authority is a *logical* fallacy, not an epistemic fallacy necessarily though. Most people accept the power and ability of authorities and even scientific debates have been settled with appeals to authority, such as the debate on the proper interpretation of quantum theory.

Umm.... where did I perform any act of ad hominem?

Why is it unreasonable to believe something if you don't have personal experience of it? How is it irrational? I have never experienced Malaysia, the only way I can assert that Malaysia(the country and not the islands) exists is by people claiming that Malaysia exists and claiming that they have evidence for that. Not only that, but have you ever experience relativity? Have you proven relativity yourself? Have you ever experienced anything involving quantum mechanics? If you accept a form of verificationism, based entirely upon your own research, then the amount of things you know to be true, dwindles considerably, almost down to nothing.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Aug 2008, 4:55 pm

corroonb wrote:
As I've already stated, there is currently no empirical evidence for the existence of god. Therefore I conclude that god doesn't exist until such evidence is forthcoming. If god exists, then one can logically prove he exists. I do not have to prove that he exists. Thiests do or their faith is a delusion.

If God exists, then one can *absolutely* prove that he exists? I don't see how that follows. I think the case actually reduces down to, "If God exists, then one can find evidences in favor of that existence", and a number of theists believe they have. Take the argument from morality:

1. Some aspect of Morality (e.g., its objective force) is observed.
2. Belief in God provides a better explanation of this feature than various alternatives.
3. Therefore, to the extent that (1) is accepted, belief in God is preferable to these alternatives

As most people believe that morality exists, but a materialist view of the world, or naturalist view does not account for an objective morality, therefore, God exists. And there are other variants of this argument.



Phagocyte
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,757

19 Aug 2008, 4:56 pm

benjimanbreeg wrote:
not about religion. And not to you unless you apologise.


Okay, I'm sorry that I became irate after you started behaving like a child. I shouldn't have lost my cool.


_________________
Un-ban Chever! Viva La Revolucion!


corroonb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377
Location: Ireland

19 Aug 2008, 4:57 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
corroonb wrote:
It being an common delusion means nothing. Very poor argument. Argument from authority is a fallacy. As is ad hominem; implying that I am not intelligent. It is unreasonable to believe something if you have no experience of it. It is unreasonable and irrational.

No, it means a lot. Argument from authority is a *logical* fallacy, not an epistemic fallacy necessarily though. Most people accept the power and ability of authorities and even scientific debates have been settled with appeals to authority, such as the debate on the proper interpretation of quantum theory.

Umm.... where did I perform any act of ad hominem?

Why is it unreasonable to believe something if you don't have personal experience of it? How is it irrational? I have never experienced Malaysia, the only way I can assert that Malaysia(the country and not the islands) exists is by people claiming that Malaysia exists and claiming that they have evidence for that. Not only that, but have you ever experience relativity? Have you proven relativity yourself? Have you ever experienced anything involving quantum mechanics? If you accept a form of verificationism, based entirely upon your own research, then the amount of things you know to be true, dwindles considerably, almost down to nothing.


There are other countries so it is not unreasonable to assume that Malaysia exists. Very poor argument. :roll:

I have never encountered a god or any supernatural being. No one has shown me any evidence of the existence of supernatural being. Therefore I conclude that there are no such things in existence. If someone tells me they have encountered god, I will consider them insane unless they have no proof.

Do you acknowledge that countries actually exist?



Last edited by corroonb on 19 Aug 2008, 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Aug 2008, 4:59 pm

corroonb wrote:
Popularity is not a good reason to believe in anything. You are being a hypocrite here and arguing fallaciously as you seem wont to do with disturbing regularity.

Popularity is a very popular reason to believe in something. Also, it makes some sense to believe in something because it is popular, however, it does not constitute an absolute proof, nor is it acceptable for the inveterate truth-seeker.

Quote:
YOU said in another thread that the popularity of government was no reason for the government to exist. Government is popular so you have good reason not to be anarchic. If you follow your own logic, you cannot be a anarchist, if government is popular.

BWA HA HA HA!! That isn't a contradiction. You are confusing epistemology with another subject. I didn't say that popularity wasn't a good reason to believe that something existed, I said it wasn't a good reason for something to exist. There is a difference between believing something, and an action.

Quote:
The only solution here is that YOU are wrong.

Umm.... or that you are confused about my positions.
Quote:
Good reason is empirical evidence. Only an encounter with god could convince me of his existence.

Some theists claim to have that, and for that you claim they are insane. Your own ideas seem contradictory, as if empirical evidence existed, you'd consider it delusion, but if it didn't exist, you'd consider the idea unjustified.



corroonb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377
Location: Ireland

19 Aug 2008, 5:00 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
corroonb wrote:
As I've already stated, there is currently no empirical evidence for the existence of god. Therefore I conclude that god doesn't exist until such evidence is forthcoming. If god exists, then one can logically prove he exists. I do not have to prove that he exists. Thiests do or their faith is a delusion.

If God exists, then one can *absolutely* prove that he exists? I don't see how that follows. I think the case actually reduces down to, "If God exists, then one can find evidences in favor of that existence", and a number of theists believe they have. Take the argument from morality:

1. Some aspect of Morality (e.g., its objective force) is observed.
2. Belief in God provides a better explanation of this feature than various alternatives.
3. Therefore, to the extent that (1) is accepted, belief in God is preferable to these alternatives

As most people believe that morality exists, but a materialist view of the world, or naturalist view does not account for an objective morality, therefore, God exists. And there are other variants of this argument.


Again very poor arguments from popularity and authority. Morality is a social construct. Morality is better explained by the social co-operation of humans. God is an unnecessary and incoherent concept held by those who are deluded.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Aug 2008, 5:03 pm

corroonb wrote:
There are other countries so it is not unreasonable to assume that Malaysia exists. Very poor argument. :roll:

How is that a poor argument? Malaysia is a specific country and it undermined the personal verificationist epistemology as you could not personally verify the existence of that single nation. Define your notions!

Quote:
I have never encountered a god or any supernatural being. No one has shown me any evidence of the existence of supernatural being. Therefore I conclude that there are no such things in existence. If someone tells me they have encountered god, I will consider them insane if they have no proof.

Ok then, we can take moral values, you've never seen those. We can atoms, you have never ever seen an atom at all, and were not involved in the experiment proving atoms, nor do you have personal experience with nuclear reactions. We could also put in there neutrinos. You have never seen a neutrino before. And the list goes on and on about the things you need special equipment or expertise to know or understand.
Quote:
Do you acknowledge that countries actually exist?

I don't see what that has to do with anything.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

19 Aug 2008, 5:03 pm

benjimanbreeg wrote:
Quote:
Haha, who's more talented the worlds greatest chess player or Tiger Woods? :wink:

There have been some pretty amazing chess players. Bobby Fischer and Jose Raul Capablanca, along with Paul Morhpy, are difficult to match in talent. And in modern times, Magnus Carlsen is insanely talented. He's younger than I am and already close to being the strongest in the world.


Maybe, but golf is probably the biggest mental test you can face, in terms of any sport or activity. You are not just fighting against the weather, the golf course, and opponents, your fighting against yourself. Every even takes a lot of dedication.[/quote]
Comparing golf to chess in terms of the mental aspect seems far-fetched. I know that I could never play golf, but I doubt that whatever psychological issues must be overcome to play well match those in chess. After all, chess is a purely mental game.

Quote:
yeah, so your a klutz in physical terms, and i'm a bit of one when it comes to theory.

And I don't attempt to compete with you in any sports. Why then do you try to take me on in a theoretical debate?

Quote:
Tiger Woods isn't just the greatest golfer ever, he's the greatest sportsman ever.

Quite a strong statement. Last I heard, many are currently wishing to give that title to Michael Phelps.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Last edited by Orwell on 19 Aug 2008, 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

benjimanbreeg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,515

19 Aug 2008, 5:03 pm

Phagocyte wrote:
benjimanbreeg wrote:
not about religion. And not to you unless you apologise.


Okay, I'm sorry that I became irate after you started behaving like a child. I shouldn't have lost my cool.


get f****d



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

19 Aug 2008, 5:05 pm

corroonb wrote:
As I've already stated, there is currently no empirical evidence for the existence of god. Therefore I conclude that god doesn't exist until such evidence is forthcoming. If god exists, then one can logically prove he exists. I do not have to prove that he exists. Thiests do or their faith is a delusion.

It isn't true at all that the existence of something implies the possibility of proving its existence. That claim is rarely made, in my opinion wisely so because it presupposes an impossible to justify confidence in human ability to know things and understand the universe, and in its place people usually say something more like "if we can't prove it we shouldn't believe it".


_________________
* here for the nachos.