|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
19th February 2019, 03:36 PM | #241 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
|
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
19th February 2019, 04:54 PM | #242 |
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,214
|
|
19th February 2019, 05:16 PM | #243 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
|
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
19th February 2019, 06:15 PM | #244 |
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,214
|
|
19th February 2019, 06:37 PM | #245 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
Well you’re both right and wrong, so no need to stop from my perspective.
Yes, I want to learn something about why people believe and more specifically why I should believe. In that process I don’t want to (and hope I don’t) judge the people that offer reasons. I definitely want to judge and challenge the reasons themselves however, because that’s how people actually test and learn things, not by merely passively listening and agreeing “nicely”. |
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
19th February 2019, 06:44 PM | #246 |
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,214
|
|
19th February 2019, 07:07 PM | #247 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Tiny town west of Brisbane.
Posts: 7,174
|
|
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard. |
|
19th February 2019, 07:08 PM | #248 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
Yes, genuinely evaluate, putting the word in quotes reflects your bias not mine. Because I want to learn and know what is valid/true. Do you want to learn and know what is valid/true?
Wrong! Not if a valid reason is provided. It's not my fault a valid reason hasn't been provided as yet. Your thinly veiled assertion that I wouldn't accept a valid reason if it was provided is wrong, so you can now stop. |
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
19th February 2019, 07:10 PM | #249 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Tiny town west of Brisbane.
Posts: 7,174
|
|
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard. |
|
19th February 2019, 07:14 PM | #250 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
|
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
19th February 2019, 07:19 PM | #251 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
|
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
19th February 2019, 07:57 PM | #252 |
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,214
|
Of course. It is valid and true that Dostoevsky had reasons that he considered worthwhile for believing in God. Whether I think those reasons are valid or true doesn't matter, because they're not my reasons. What is valid and true is that he did. How that helps you is currently unclear to me.
Oh come on. We all know that none of the three of us will ever consider any reason for believing in God to be a good one, regardless of any pseudo-openness to alternatives. We're right, remember. We have actual reality on our side. You're claiming to be open to the possibility that fairies really exist. Well, they don't. No evidence has ever been provided that sufficiently proves that fairies exist, and none ever will. Sure, if it ever is, we will change our minds. But it won't. You know it won't, and I know it won't. Same with God. We can say that we're open to arguments for God's existence, and technically we are, but in reality, we know that no argument will be sufficient to convince us. |
19th February 2019, 07:59 PM | #253 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
Dunno about ynot, but at least in my case, if those reasons are why I should believe X is true, why wouldn't I evaluate them?
A little more time before Alzheimer's kicks in? I hear brain exercise does that I'm sorry, did some memo go around saying that one needs special reasons to turn the ol' brain on? Plus, then the same would apply to your questions, innit? What do you get from evaluating HIS reasons? Why do you do it then? Is he? I don't know about him, but I'm quite open to the possibility that someone might one day actually make a good case. But obviously today isn't that day. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
19th February 2019, 09:13 PM | #254 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 820
|
Hi all. Been following the thread with quiet interest without having too much to contribute, but thought I'd chime in with a few thoughts. Regarding reasons for conversions (pertinent to the OP and asked specifically by Thor 2), the one I have heard the most is from people who felt badly about themselves or their actions/behaviours and were disappointed with their seeming inability to change. I have heard many "testimonies" from people who felt unlovable and were moved to hear about (and "feel a sense of") being loved by God. I've heard a lot of people accredit that experience, and their response in faith thereto , as being a turning point for them towards realizing and maintaining the positive change they had desired beforehand. I have had similar experiences, though having grown up in a religious household, it wasn't so much from an outside perspective.
I think this is an important caveat to the idea that religion only solves problems it has created; plenty of people have poor self-image/esteem without any religious influence. I think that's also a big reason why religion is more prevalent (and "outreach" more convincing) among low-income/education demographics including those involved with crime. it's a pretty major theme of the new testament gospels as well (i.e., "it is the sick, not the healthy that need a doctor") and I think people's natural tendency to be self-critical and desire self-improvement is part of why christian religious thinking has resonated so strongly and broadly. Anyway, that's one perspective as to why some people believe. As you can see, it's got nothing to do with the logical feasibility of the existence of god(s), which I think is true for most theists and a "deal breaker" for most atheists. It may also be why it's difficult for a thread like this to have a productive outcome (though hopefully the discussion itself has some value for the participants and audience along the way at least). Cheers! |
19th February 2019, 09:38 PM | #255 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 820
|
|
19th February 2019, 09:51 PM | #256 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
Okaaaay . . .
So what? I already know that people believe what they believe for their own reasons. What has that got to do with accessing whether the reasons they believe are good enough for me to possibly believe in a god? To do that effectively I need to evaluate whether the reasons they believe are true and valid, and whether those reasons are true and valid absolutely does matter to me. It’s the only thing that does matter in fact. That’s the whole object of the exercise. Is that still currently unclear to you? I wouldn’t believe in a god merely because it’s valid and true that someone else believes in it, would you? |
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
19th February 2019, 09:55 PM | #257 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
|
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
19th February 2019, 10:01 PM | #258 |
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,214
|
Well, it was ynot that I was asking. But thanks for offering your perspective too.
They're not being presented as reasons why you should believe x is true. They're being presented as reasons why Dostoevsky (for example) believes x is true. Technically, sure. But I'm certain that you, like me, ynot, and Thor2, and others of the usual crowd, don't believe that that will ever actually happen. |
19th February 2019, 10:06 PM | #259 |
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,214
|
Ah, so this thread isn't just an intellectual exercise in finding out the reasons why people believe in God, it's intended as an opportunity for you to strike those reasons down. Sorry, I mean evaluate them.
Do you even want one of those reasons to be valid? Do you really want the world to be such that the God of the Bible really actually exists, as described? I don't. |
19th February 2019, 11:14 PM | #260 |
Maledictorian
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,557
|
How's this for a reason: God will smite you and everyone and everything you love if you don't believe.
You want to take that chance? |
__________________
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.” |
|
19th February 2019, 11:45 PM | #261 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
What in Satan's good name does any of that have to do with anything? Especially WANTING something to be true. I mean, even as inclination to believe something goes, I really want lightsabers to be real, but I'm pretty darned sure they can't be.
But sure, if that's the bar for taking part in such a discussion, I really want the Norse gods to be real. I mean, I've seen the Thor movies, he's FABULOUS. Mmmm... wouldn't you want to touch his... err... hammer. *AHEM* I'm not gay, ok? Doesn't mean I'll actually accept any nonsense reason for it, but apparently that qualifies as a reason to be in the thread anyway. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
19th February 2019, 11:49 PM | #262 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
Hi, thanks for contributing. I’m not sure how much “being loved by God” is an actual factor or whether it’s actually more the religious community itself. Sure, religious communities can be effective at giving those that need it a sense of belonging, companionship, family, personal worth, etc. But so can and do criminal biker gangs, neo-nazi groups, and (less offensively to us I’m sure) social and sporting communities as well. Might we agree that the end doesn’t always justify the means (if ever)?
I know some people that have poor self-image/esteem with religious influence. They tend to believe but not be in a religious community however. I personally knew two religious people that committed suicide (unrelated events). The more complete quote is “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance”. So nothing to do with poor self-image/esteem or low-income/education, but everything to do with being “sick” because you’re a “sinner”. I think it’s more likely to be religious community than religious thinking that has resonated so strongly and broadly. Merely a guess from my own assessment. And thanks for that perspective. I agree that’s why some join a religious community and believe in a god (don't know which happens first). I don’t think this applies to the majority of believers however and it’s not something that would inspire me to join or believe. If I ever needed support from a community I could get it elsewhere and without the need to believe in a god with all the unnecessary baggage that comes with doing that. Cheers |
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
19th February 2019, 11:54 PM | #263 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
|
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
20th February 2019, 12:04 AM | #264 |
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,214
|
Don't be so sure...
I'm just trying to get at the reasons that avowed atheists ask questions like this. In my experience it's most often in order to ridicule and debunk, rather than to genuinely inquire and understand. So far I'm not seeing anything to change that impression. |
20th February 2019, 12:13 AM | #265 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
Always happy to receive feedback about anything, and no one has to tip-toe over broken glass in the process. Being a life-long religious believer you can only view and assess things from that perspective (and myself the opposite). It’s no surprise therefore that you experience and interpret "the tone of the thread, the tag-lines on your posts, and the reply" the way you do, and that I don’t. I don’t mind and I’m not offended in any way by your occasional “tsk, tsk” posts.
ETA - My experience in interacting with many (not all or even most) theists is that they have and display a superior, smug attitude toward myself and other atheists. Given you’ve lived your entire life inside a religious community, that superior, smug attitude may be so normal to you that you don’t/can’t see it as being such. Or it doesn't exist in your particular community. For all I know you may have that attitude yourself to some degree without realising you have it. An “ex-theist” on this forum doesn’t understand why all people don’t accept speaking in tongues as being anything but normal. |
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
20th February 2019, 12:21 AM | #266 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
The burden of proof falls on those who claim the existence of something. If you claim that there is rational evidence that is not subjective in morality or moral rules, you must give that proof.
Dostoyevsky does not believe that such a thing exists. Then it is not he who must prove it, but you. If you know something about politics or business world you cannot deny that many people behave cynically (Critias). Don't ask me for proof of something so simple. I think my first three points are solid. Go to the point of loving Christ. Here Dostoevsky makes a statement of fact. A statement of fact says something really exists. Dostoevsky asserts that only Love of Christ and belief in immortality can give to men objective reasons to act compassionately (ethically). This is an affirmation that reality is so and must be demonstrated, as you correctly argue by showing facts that contradict it. Dostoyevsky responds to that attack in two ways. One: he acknowledges that there is no evidence in favor of his theory. Two: he tries to undermine the counter proofs by changing the concept of Love for Christ. Those who claim to love Christ but behave without compassion are not true Christians. In fact, in his novels appear these false Christians who do not behave compassionately and are repulsive. However, point two is a persuasive manipulation. Dostoevsky has changed the usual definition of Christian to make it unfalsifiable. Every time that you show a cruel Christian he says: "He is not a true Christian". Point one is tryng to equalize both options to benefit his own choice. If you want a compassionate morality, you must love Christ and believe in the immortality of the soul. If not you are a cynic ("nihilist", in his words) as Critias. In this way, Dostoevsky has not maintained his position, but has made the atheist option uncomfortable. How can he present a moral system that offers some kind of objectivity or universal obligation? How can he avoid Critias' cynicism? This probably won't "impress" a firm atheist, but it is aimed at undecided people who see Critias' position as a catastrophe. Dostoevsky was less stupid than you think. |
20th February 2019, 12:26 AM | #267 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
|
20th February 2019, 12:26 AM | #268 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
It is that, but not predominately that, it's more requesting reasons why I should believe (read the title).
Evaluating other peoples reasons is an opportunity to assess whether I could possibly accept them for myself or not. If you want to say that's "striking them down" then that's merely your opinion that I'm not interested in. I there is a valid reason to believe I'd like to know it. If there is an actual god I'd like to know it, regardless that I'd prefer there wasn't. |
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
20th February 2019, 12:29 AM | #269 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
|
20th February 2019, 12:31 AM | #270 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
|
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
20th February 2019, 12:32 AM | #271 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
I'm not sure why you think the two are mutually exclusive. Especially since, yes, you have to understand something before you decide it's bonkers mental.
It seems to me like you're saying I should use my brain only on half of the problem or the other, but somehow have an interlock against keeping it on for both. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
20th February 2019, 12:40 AM | #272 |
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,214
|
Again in my experience, many atheists do not understand the religion that they are disavowing. They come to atheism via other reasons, and never bother to learn about, for example, the Bible, because "it's all nonsense anyway" so what's the point?
I'm just trying to nail down the purpose of the thread. If you are learning only to ridicule, then I don't think that's a good use of your time. Spend time learning other things. |
20th February 2019, 12:46 AM | #273 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
Nobody claimed that it's not subjective, so what you're repeatedly doing is creating your own STRAWMAN and demanding that someone defend it. Which is patently nonsense.
But the point is that you haven't showed that the religious one isn't. And until you make and support that claim, then just harping on some form of "but secular morality is subjective", is meaningless. And by now stupid, since that point was addressed repeatedly already. Again, it's like saying that Leghorn roosters are the worst, because they don't lay eggs. Well, as opposed to what? What other roosters do lay eggs? Until a claim is made and supported that some other roosters do lay eggs, harping on the fact that Leghorn ones don't is just bloody nonsense. I don't care if he's stupid or not, he's for a start a textbook case of appeal to false authority. Even if I were to allow, for the scope of this argument, the informal logic heuristics for just trusting a source without looking at what's their data for it, Dostoevsky just isn't a relevant source for statements about sociology and psychology. He doesn't have a degree in either (unsurprising, since the disciplines didn't even exist yet), he has done NO proper studies, he has published NO papers, has NO peer review in the relevant fields for his claims, and his data sample is of exactly ONE. And even that one isn't a random guy, but someone who self-admittedly has mystical feelings when his epilepsy aura strikes. Waving HIM around as some authority, that I need some special reason to disagree with, is a textbook fallacy. Second, even smart people and on their own domain make mistakes. Behe, for example, actually has a Ph.D. in biology, IIRC, but his arguments for intelligent designs are flat out wrong anyway. So even if Dostoevsky had a Ph.D. in philosophy or sociology, he'd STILL have to show the data that supports those assertions. He'd have to show that he cleared the bar for disproving the null hypothesis in that case, as well as competing hypotheses, such as that, you know, his really talking about his epilepsy auras rather than about how a normal human operates. In any case, he doesn't get to be automatically right, just because he's a smart cookie. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
20th February 2019, 12:56 AM | #274 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
Many do, but as you well know, many on this board have studied the Bible enough to be ordained if we so wished. I for one have repeatedly provided not only exact verse numbers, but also the mainstream theological interpretations (well, mostly the Catholic ones) on occasion, and even occasional Midrash and Talmud interpretations for the OT.
And not just Xianity. I also have at least read the Quran and several other religious texts, and can even tell you mainstream fatwas (interpretations) for the former. So while I understand your concern about SOME unspecified atheists out there that aren't even in this thread, I think that I'm qualified enough to make fun of religion. And on the topic of Dostoevsky's assertions about how humans work, I did study anthropology for a year. Well, that's not much, and you definitely shouldn't take me as an authority on that field, but it's still: A) one more year than Dostoevsky had, and more importantly, B) enough to know that there are valid ways of collecting such data, and that one guy rationalizing his own epileptic experiences is not it. Basically enough to ask "where's the data" and "how was it obtained." Even if that were the case -- although, as I was saying, I'm actually more than open and willing to be given a reason to believe in the Norse gods -- what's the problem? Humour is a useful tool. If I actually learned to take the piss better from such a thread, it seems to me like it would be time well spent |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
20th February 2019, 12:58 AM | #275 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
Arguments that are not strictly scientific do not lead to immediate persuasion. Even among scientists things are not so simple. It would be absurd to pretend that I am going to convince someone in this forum by giving a definitive argument against or in favor of the existence of God. Dostoevsky's intention is to undermine the trust of the atheist of good will or the undecided. He tries to change his point of view on something fundamental - of course, not suddenly - so that he himself gets closer to Dostoevsky's point of departure.
So all atheists who respond with contempt or intransigence are losing the battle from the beginning. The cases in which a furious atheist ends up asking for Viaticum are not few and demonstrate that the loudest positions are not always the most solids. |
20th February 2019, 01:03 AM | #276 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
Yes, I think that was clear to everyone. Because we've all seen others do the same attempts at spreading unfounded fear, uncertainty and doubt, when they don't actually have a logical argument for their religion. And not even just another case of fear, uncertainty and doubt, but the SAME one over and over again. It's always the SAME assertions that you should fear the atheists, because they have no morals, and nothing stops them from deciding to kill or rape you or whatever. As Aridas too has said before, it's actually mainstream for religious propaganda these days.
Even Dostoevsky, I'm pretty sure I've heard for example William Lane Craig quote the Brothers Karamazov quip that "without god, everything is allowed", when it served his purposes. So, you know, it doesn't come as as much of a total intellectual surprise when you pop up with Dostoevsky. Heard that position before. Oh gee, fantasies about how anyone who doesn't play by your strawmen and ipse-dixit assertions have already lost. Just when I was thinking your arguments can't get any more crackpot. You first get to show that your arguments are in fact SOUND, before deciding who lost. Not INSTEAD of showing a sound argument. Fantasies about how someone has lost if they don't play by your redefining the rules, that's... just bloody sad, that's what it is. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
20th February 2019, 01:07 AM | #277 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
By now you should know what my posture is and what Dostoevsky's posture is. Fine-tune your reading, please.
Dostoevsky does not claim that all atheists are bad people. He claims that they don't have the intellectual weapons to defeat Critias, the cynic. Therefore, their position is weak. Therefore, he tries to convince that if we consider Critias to be the main enemy, we will have to renounce atheism. |
20th February 2019, 01:11 AM | #278 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
Minor correction. The argument is more along the lines of "atheists should live in unending abject terror of eternal death and, if they aren't, are inauthentic losers."
I think that this is a pretty fair assessment. I think that you're a little bit off track here, though, much as my objection here has more to do with the emphasis implicit in singling out a single reason. I would rate that as, at best, a minor factor or derivative from more important factors overall. For a discussion like this to actually convince people to believe or not to believe, it would likely need to address the underlying values that are being invoked. Otherwise... a Mormon complaint rises to mind. "Just let us have our stories! What does it matter if they're true or not, when they offer us and each other an amazing, friendly community and happy lives that lead to positive impacts on the world?" Feel free to throw out the "being loved by God" as an actual factor, I'd say. What matters more is the set of beliefs that are actually being embraced. "I am loved. I am worthwhile. I am special (in a good way)." If you truly believe things like these, obviously, life will be much more attractive than if you don't. The effect is dramatically more noticeable and desirable for those who aren't doing so well on that front, as is to be expected. Having community is also a beneficial thing, though, yes, as you noted. It's worth noting to your generalization that different communities offer different benefits and drawbacks to people and thus some will be notably more attractive to people than others. Your assessment... would be more on point for those already heavily influenced by that faith more or less. When you have cases of people simply feeling that "something is wrong here" and subconsciously groping about for answers and preferably a solution, sin doesn't factor in so much. |
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
20th February 2019, 01:16 AM | #279 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
I don't know what data you're asking for.
Your claim that what has not been published in a scientific journal is false is absurd. There are important questions for humanity that are not purely scientific. 95% or more of the things we discuss in this forum have not been published in any scientific journal. Let's discuss what Dostoevsky said, please. |
20th February 2019, 01:19 AM | #280 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
Again, first you have to show that theists do, before it means anything. Otherwise again, it's like saying that Longhorn roosters are useless because they don't lay eggs, as opposed to the other roosters, which also don't.
And it seems to me like Dostoevsky himself has put a lot of effort in showing that no, religion doesn't stop people from bending the rules to their own ends. In fact, he outright has a problem with organized religion, as one way to bend those rules in a pretzel. Read the chapter titled "The Grand Inquisitor" for example. And sure, you could do a "No True Scotsman" and claim that, yeah, but that's because those who bend the rules aren't True Scotsmen... err... True Christians, that just weakens that position even more. Because if you can't tell whether your Critias has actually become a True Scotsman... err... Xian or not, then the whole idiocy of defeating him by religion has failed. Epically. So epically in fact that future bards might sing a National Epic Fail about it. Which, as I already addressed repeatedly, is illogical nonsense. Even if some belief would be useful -- though again, I don't see you showing any evidence even for that -- it does not make that belief true. I.e., it's not evidence for that belief. As such, no, it's not a logical reason for that belief. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|