TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- God
Pages (25): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 »

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Also, at least in this country (the US) there should be contempt for religious people. They should be ridiculed and driven from having any sort of serious role in society. They contribute nothing to our advancement and they wrap up very bad policy in the guise of religion. If you take away the flock of sheep who will blindly follow religious conservatives we would solve a lot of the political problems in this country. They would have to find something else to convince people to vote for their horrible policy other than being "good god fearing bible worshiping politicians" which is the sole reason I have heard people vote for conservatives. These are the same poor people that rely on government help to let their families survive, and they are willing to throw it away because the people that are trying to take it from them are "good christians."

Troll type: Topicus Hand-Jazzicus Nigglous
Subtype: Reformus Religulous Totalicus
Strengths: Presents an inflexible, radical viewpoint by appearing to have drawn conclusions from incomplete or inaccurate sources of information; thereby fostering a belief that correcting such inaccuracies will result in the target's "success".
Weaknesses: Inflexibility and Radicalization must be carefully balanced with just the right amount of ignorance unless the whole mixture becomes volatile and evaporates. Loses potency after first 459 doses.

Here, Nou hazardously puts forth his "opinion" which has so many gaping holes the target should not be able resist trying to fill them. Mixed with an alarming conclusion about what should be done and to whom, he has set the trap which he must tip-toe away from, so as not to set it off, prematurely. Unfortunately, too much inflexibility tipped the balance and the target was able to detect the acrid scent of burning troll.



Score: 9.9/99.99

How is it then that countries with lower levels of religious indoctrination tend to perform better over all than countries with higher religious indoctrination? Show me countries that have a very high percentage of religious affiliation and do well?

Granted, countries that do not have high religious affiliations are not always that great, but it seems almost universal that countries that have a very high religious affiliation almost always have a very shit quality of life.

Here is a nice little article for you.

http://www.scienceandreligiontoday....ortance-of-god/

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby How is it then that countries with lower levels of religious indoctrination tend to perform better over all than countries with higher religious indoctrination? Show me countries that have a very high percentage of religious affiliation and do well? Granted, countries that do not have high religious affiliations are not always that great, but it seems almost universal that countries that have a very high religious affiliation almost always have a very shit quality of life.

I'd like to see a source on that but it actually sounds reasonable. The measures you suggest for attaining that, however, don't sound reasonable. In fact, I'd suggest that contempt actually validates prominent religious narratives that justify the myopic world views and narrow-minded political thinking you're railing against.

I am not sure what other measures you could take...

The religious zealots that are here now are based off the ones who got kicked out of europe or left because they felt it wasn't religious enough... Thats how the europeans solved it, their religious nuts came here (except for Italy, Italy sucks).

If we do not shun them in to keeping their beliefs out of other peoples lives and out of the progression of our society based on sound ideas based in science and fact than what other options do we have? They refuse to be educated, they refuse logical arguments, they refuse to let their children decide their own paths (though they often end up failing at that)... I really see no way to get their influence down with out shunning them and ostracizing them and generally making them feel like they do not have a right to espouse their stupidity.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby I am not sure what other measures you could take... ... If we do not shun them...

That's a failure of imagination. I'm not saying that religious influence should be accepted in politics but that's a small part of the big picture, particularly when you have politicians, being funded by corporations, who play into religious narratives. You want to attack religious people but you're aiming at a symptom rather than the cause of the problem.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker That's a failure of imagination. I'm not saying that religious influence should be accepted in politics but that's a small part of the big picture, particularly when you have politicians, being funded by corporations, who play into religious narratives. You want to attack religious people but you're aiming at a symptom rather than the cause of the problem.

Religious people vote in the worst of the corporate puppet politicians. Those politicians wrap themselves in the flag and thump the bible and exploit the ignorance and stupidity of the common conservative religious voter.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Religious people vote in the worst of the corporate puppet politicians. Those politicians wrap themselves in the flag and thump the bible and exploit the ignorance and stupidity of the common conservative religious voter.

Have you ever read What's the Matter with Kansas? by Thomas Frank?

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Have you ever read What's the Matter with Kansas? by Thomas Frank?

No.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby No.

The reason I asked is that it speaks to a lot of what you're trying to talk to. The problem I see with your arguments is that you're blaming religious people solely for the current political climate. What you're failing to understand is that the problem, directly related to fundamentalist Christians, is small in comparison to the amalgamation of problems contributing to wider political discord. There is little doubt that they are a numerically important cross-section. Unfortunately, they are not the source of the problem and the problem is actually a lot of problems relating to the political discourse in this country.

I think if you're pissed at Christians voting conservative and what not why not do something about it. Start a club/movement/collective.

Time to haul your ass out of the intellectual armchair, put down the pipe and get your hands dirty.

Just my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby How is it then that countries with lower levels of religious indoctrination tend to perform better over all than countries with higher religious indoctrination? Show me countries that have a very high percentage of religious affiliation and do well? Granted, countries that do not have high religious affiliations are not always that great, but it seems almost universal that countries that have a very high religious affiliation almost always have a very shit quality of life.

Bringing it down to a Smaller scale, let's say the united states, the more Conservative states per say performed better than the more liberal states in the economic dowturn?.. Just an observation :/

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX Bringing it down to a Smaller scale, let's say the united states, the more Conservative states per say performed better than the more liberal states in the economic dowturn?.. Just an observation :/

There really isn't that much correlation between high church attendance in individual states and their economic status.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker insisting that belief in God is the result of illogical thinking,

Well. It is. Nobody has ever produced a logical argument or evidence of God's existence, thus it's by definition illogical to believe it.
But that's not actually in principle what you are saying, is it? - I just don't see why it should be mentioned.

quote:

to engage in further illogical discourse is indicative of hypocrisy.

I don't understand what you mean by "continuing an illogical discussion". Was it an illogical discussion from the beginning? Why? And can you not participate in an illogical discussion without being illogical? Are you saying atheists often use illogical arguments in discussions that otherwise would not be illogical?

quote:

Originally posted by Znack Well. It is. Nobody has ever produced a logical argument or evidence of God's existence, thus it's by definition illogical to believe it. But that's not actually in principle what you are saying, is it? - I just don't see why it should be mentioned. I don't understand what you mean by "continuing an illogical discussion". Was it an illogical discussion from the beginning? Why? And can you not participate in an illogical discussion without being illogical? Are you saying atheists often use illogical arguments in discussions that otherwise would not be illogical?

No. It is not. A single, provable condition does not constitute either the non-existence of God or the ad hominem partly inferred from it. Similarly, presents, found under the Christmas Tree on December 25th, do not adequately prove the existence of Santa Claus.

It's mentioned because it is one of the more popular arguments and reliant on probably one of the simplest, most logical arguments an atheist can substantiate. A religious person has to concede that, in the absence of hard evidence, they cannot prove God exists. They can raise all sorts of arguments, ranging from personal anecdotes to events of historical religious significance, but there is no proof they can offer - in the way one could argue the sky is, indeed, blue - that God exists.

But that is the end of that argument's potency. It does not prove God does not exist. It only establishes the fact that religious people cannot prove that God exists. That argument is then used to infer the following ad hominem: Because religious people cannot prove that God exists, their belief is a symptom of their stupidity, gullibility, dishonesty, insanity, ignorance, et al, or all-of-the-above.

The conditional ad hominem is false. It applies to everyone who is religious, discounts considerable intellectual capacity many religious people have proven themselves capable of, and/or pathologizes them because of a presumed insanity deduced from their belief. It completely discounts how they came to arrive at their belief; their personal experience, intellectual consideration, or field of study, for example.

The fact is that two fallacies are created. The deduction that God does not exist because he cannot be proven to exist is a fallacy of composition. For the fact that the argument you feel is so bullet-proof is constituted by at least two logical fallacies, it is a fruitless, illogical discussion. It takes a grain of truth and then wraps it in two layers of outright bullshit.

Furthermore, if its "logic" is taken at face value, it negates the very purpose of having the discussion, to begin with. If you accept that the ad hominem is true, then your opponent is too stupid, insane, gullible, et al to see the error of his ways. If he concedes that it is true, then he is also unqualified to be able to adopt your point of view; since the apparently very flawed reasoning he's demonstrated himself capable of is used to then adopt your conclusions. In essence, the argument functions to marginalize the religious person as someone incapable of understanding the very discussion pertinent to them and of which they are thought to be a part of, thereby negating any reason for them to be a participant in the discussion to begin with.

Following the reasoning put forth in such flawed rhetoric, what you are left with is a compound logical fallacy starting a discussion in which only people who agree with one another are capable of participating in. Being that the discussion is founded on a compound logical fallacy, it stands to reason that further discussion, even amongst its agreeing members, can't possibly do anything but disprove the existence of logic.


EDIT: And I apologize but I posted the wrong thread page in the discussion I was alluding to, earlier, and which is pertinent to the sort of argument I've illustrated, above. Here is the correct page, beginning where I ask Halcyon+On+On if he's being ironic:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=563369&perpage=12&forumid=16&pagenumber=19

I do apologize for any confusion.

If you base your belief on the existence of something through proof provided by scientific method then the idea that God exists is illogical. There is no test for the existence of any god or higher power, if there was there would be no debate in this modern age about it because it would be readily proved by science.

It is not though. You can wrap it up in your own logic all you want Eddie, but the fact is there is not a single test that can prove the existence of a god, so there for it does not exist until it is proven to exist.

If its proven to exist you can go back and revise your theories and say "ok, now we must take into account that god does exist, how does that change these things."

So lets just leave it at the correct logical conclusion based on science alone and say higher powers with determinate will do not exist (at least for now).

I know that is impossible, otherwise people would have given up religion as some sort of guiding force long ago, and their only reason to continue to believe is because of faith, which is basically an excuse for not looking at science and logic and just saying "i know its there, i believe, because i have to believe."

Thats not to say you are stupid, but if you have faith then its implied that you forgo logic for something you believe in for the sake of believing in it. Logic and science has no place in faith as in faith has no place in logic or science.

The burden of proof is the best way to look at things. If you claim something exists, it is generally up to you to either prove it or provide a substantial amount of evidence that the probability of existence is high.

Rationalizing logic like Eddie is doing is dangerous as well. If you rationalize logic in that you cant prove that something didn't happen nor can you prove that it did happen you open up a lot of dark places, like prosecuting people for crimes, and letting people think that its ok to judge someone and say "well there isn't a way to prove they didn't do it" when the burden of proof should always be on if there was a way for it to occur given all the variables (the chief one being in criminal law, the defendant(s)).

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker No. It is not. A single, provable condition does not constitute either the non-existence of God or the ad hominem partly inferred from it.

Who has ever said that?

I think I have to explain a little: I have never claimed that there certainly are no gods. Only that it's just as unlikely as all other unproven allegations, such as gnomes or unicorns.

Your comparison with Santa Claus is directly the opposite of the truth. It is quite true that gifts do not prove Santa's existence - but the argument can be transferred to - healings and strange events do not prove God's existence.
His non-existence is assumed as a starting point when we have no evidence of his existence.

quote:

But that is the end of that argument's potency. It does not prove God does not exist.

No one has ever claimed that. The fact that something isn't disproved, does not mean there is reason to believe it.

For instance. It is not possible to prove that unicorns don't exist. Do you believe in them for that reason? If you believe in God just because he is not disproven, you might as well also believe in all other kind of things, like gnomes and Fairies.

quote:

Because religious people cannot prove that God exists, their belief is a symptom of their stupidity, gullibility, dishonesty, insanity, ignorance, et al, or all-of-the-above.

No - just that they have an illogical belief.

And now it's you who are approaching a straw man fallacy.

Znack, I would urge you to reread the entirety of our discussion in this thread. That isn't a straw-man. When I replied to you, in this thread, yesterday, that is exactly the argument I was addressing and illustrating, in my last post, to you. Simply put, you asked and I have answered.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby If you base your belief on the existence of something through proof provided by scientific method then the idea that God exists is illogical. There is no test for the existence of any god or higher power, if there was there would be no debate in this modern age about it because it would be readily proved by science. It is not though. You can wrap it up in your own logic all you want Eddie, but the fact is there is not a single test that can prove the existence of a god, so there for it does not exist until it is proven to exist. If its proven to exist you can go back and revise your theories and say "ok, now we must take into account that god does exist, how does that change these things." So lets just leave it at the correct logical conclusion based on science alone and say higher powers with determinate will do not exist (at least for now). I know that is impossible, otherwise people would have given up religion as some sort of guiding force long ago, and their only reason to continue to believe is because of faith, which is basically an excuse for not looking at science and logic and just saying "i know its there, i believe, because i have to believe."

I am advocating in favor of logical discourse. I have established how atheists have, on more than one occasion, abandoned logical argument in favor of engaging in a fallacious rhetorical strategy when the entire foundation of their thesis is not simply reliant on logical correctness, but consistently favored by it. If you want to enact a qualification that only that which can be scientifically substantiated should be considered valid, then it should be administered with a commensurate measure that only people who are qualified to make such assertions should be allowed to participate. I'm fairly certain that enacting such measures would result in not just the elimination of 99.999% of the bullshit, in this thread, but 95% of the people who could otherwise participate. That includes you and I in the eliminated group.

I've made it very clear, in this thread, that I equally resent the fallacious arguments made by religious people. You seem to be arguing 1) a rule which only allows scientifically provable evidence to be considered as valid, 2) that the existence of God is disproved until otherwise proven with said, scientific evidence, and 3) that as a result, remarks on the idiocy of religious people should stand as, without scientific evidence to prove the existence of God, there is no evidence to disprove their idiocy. Perhaps that's not what you mean but that is what is implied by what I would otherwise characterize as a total misunderstanding of my position. You should honestly review some of my other posts in this thread, to include one YouTube video satirizing a religious argument about the absence of morality without God.

Finally, I've not made any assertion about what my faith is based on, nor am I even arguing for its validity. I'm not even attempting to disprove atheist arguments in order that my would-be arguments for religion would have a chance. I don't believe, no matter how articulate or compelling I can be, that I will ever be able to satisfactorily prove the existence of God. It can't be done. The totality of my activity in this thread has been pointing out how each side has been entirely inconsistent with logic, in arguing their case.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby If you base your belief on the existence of something through proof provided by scientific method then the idea that God exists is illogical. There is no test for the existence of any god or higher power, if there was there would be no debate in this modern age about it because it would be readily proved by science. It is not though. You can wrap it up in your own logic all you want Eddie, but the fact is there is not a single test that can prove the existence of a god, so there for it does not exist until it is proven to exist. If its proven to exist you can go back and revise your theories and say "ok, now we must take into account that god does exist, how does that change these things." So lets just leave it at the correct logical conclusion based on science alone and say higher powers with determinate will do not exist (at least for now). I know that is impossible, otherwise people would have given up religion as some sort of guiding force long ago, and their only reason to continue to believe is because of faith, which is basically an excuse for not looking at science and logic and just saying "i know its there, i believe, because i have to believe." Thats not to say you are stupid, but if you have faith then its implied that you forgo logic for something you believe in for the sake of believing in it. Logic and science has no place in faith as in faith has no place in logic or science.

Show me a test that proves the laws of logic.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Show me a test that proves the laws of logic.

So clever...

Anyways...Bill O'Reilly's latest incursion into extreme idiocy.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/12028194...aylist_id=86923

quote:

Originally posted by woscar Anyways...Bill O'Reilly's latest incursion into extreme idiocy. http://video.foxnews.com/v/12028194...aylist_id=86923

Oh, God.





That's hard to even watch, all the way through.

Anselm's ontological proof:

1) God is a being, greater than which you cannot conceive of.
2) It is greater to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone.
3) Therefore, God exists.

the most interesting proof is in Descartes, in his second Meditation. God exists because he guarantees the function of reason and logic. 2+3 can only equal 5 if God exists.











(explanation of anselm's proof: if you can conceive of a being greater than God, then it isn't Him. if you can't conceive of a greater being, then God exists. if you accept propositino '1' and accept proposition '2', then '3' is necessary. whatever criticisms you think of don't pertain to the problem, you would have to prove the propositions incorrect first. it's a kind of philosophical trick.)

quote:

Originally posted by pozz Anselm's ontological proof: 1) God is a being, greater than which you cannot conceive of. 2) It is greater to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone. 3) Therefore, God exists. the most interesting proof is in Descartes, in his second Meditation. God exists because he guarantees the function of reason and logic. 2+3 can only equal 5 if God exists. (explanation of anselm's proof: if you can conceive of a being greater than God, then it isn't Him. if you can't conceive of a greater being, then God exists. if you accept propositino '1' and accept proposition '2', then '3' is necessary. whatever criticisms you think of don't pertain to the problem, you would have to prove the propositions incorrect first. it's a kind of philosophical trick.)

yeah i'd like to see his proof for noa's ark LOL

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.