Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

When it comes to religion, are you a hypocrite?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Boris Godunov


    The problem is that when they asked the question, they didn't set any limit or definition of "God." Some people define God in bizarre ways, after all.
    yes there is no limit on how u can define god. but I don't find all definitions of god equally palitable. like I already pointed out. ppl hide things in their definitions.

    Comment


    • #62
      I bit one bullet. No direct hit.

      You are consistent in applying the principle that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity this conviction. The problem is that it seems you have to accept that people might be justified in their belief that terrible things are right. You have agreed that the rapist is justified in believing that he carries out the will of God, and in an earlier answer you indicated that you think that God defines what is good and what is evil. Therefore, to be consistent, you must think the rapist is justified in believing that he acts morally when he acts on his inner conviction. Hence, you bite the bullet and justify the rapist.


      Indeed, I think the rapist thinks he did the right thing. However, the "right thing" is only determined by God, i.e the irrelevant little voice in the rapist's head.
      The rapist's belief in as justified/injustified as any belief which comes from little voices in one's head. That's precisely why I believe in a social code of morals, with which the political system comes up with arbitrary yet society-wide acknowledged rules.[/spoiler]
      Last edited by Spiffor; June 30, 2003, 23:27.
      "I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
      "I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
      "I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis

      Comment


      • #63
        I think some people (even those who agreed with me) aren't even reading the atheist question correctly.
        While I agree that their logic is poor even if the question were worded correctly, the problem is more fundamental. Here is the question:

        As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality.
        ie, If there is no evidence that god does not exist, then it is irrational to believe that god does not exist.

        From what I can tell, people are reading the question as if it said: If there is no evidence that god exists, then it is irrational to believe that god does not exist.
        "I read a book twice as fast as anybody else. First, I read the beginning, and then I read the ending, and then I start in the middle and read toward whatever end I like best." - Gracie Allen

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Edan
          I think some people (even those who agreed with me) aren't even reading the atheist question correctly.
          While I agree that their logic is poor even if the question were worded correctly, the problem is more fundamental. Here is the question:



          ie, If there is no evidence that god does not exist, then it is irrational to believe that god does not exist.

          From what I can tell, people are reading the question as if it said: If there is no evidence that god exists, then it is irrational to believe that god does not exist.
          thats absurd. this example has been used in religious arguments to death. but u can not claim something, then demand that the person u r trying to convince go find evidence it doesn't exist! and certainly not something u can define away from all evidence!

          its an absurdity to lay this down as a logical argument.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by yavoon


            thats absurd. this example has been used in religious arguments to death. but u can not claim something, then demand that the person u r trying to convince go find evidence it doesn't exist! and certainly not something u can define away from all evidence!

            its an absurdity to lay this down as a logical argument.
            Huh? I'm not trying to argue anything in that post, just point out that I think some people aren't reading the question correctly.
            "I read a book twice as fast as anybody else. First, I read the beginning, and then I read the ending, and then I start in the middle and read toward whatever end I like best." - Gracie Allen

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Edan


              Huh? I'm not trying to argue anything in that post, just point out that I think some people aren't reading the question correctly.

              yah my response was pretty much a reflex reaction anyway=[

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
                The Loch Ness monster question, in particular, was pretty stupid. One would think that an omnipotent deity might be a little more skilled at avoiding detection that a prehistoric lizard trapped in some Scottish lake.
                Are you that ignorant that you don't know of Nessie's invisibility ? There's a reason he avoided detection for so much time now


                I think the test is generally consistent. You anti-Nessies should have a look at the site's FAQ, for it adresses the question quite well.

                Actually, I have taken the "limited god" route, i.e I don't rule out the existence of God entirely, but I don't believe God is omni-anything, and multiple limited gods are about as likely to exist as one omnipotent god (i.e none is proven, and none is disproven). Hack, the belief in Bozo The Great Rabbit ( )as the one and only superior being is as valid as any religious claim.
                "I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
                "I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
                "I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis

                Comment


                • #68
                  Thanks for the pointer, Boris.

                  IMO, they make a major flaw when they get to this point:

                  Well, imagine yourself confronted by a Nessie non-existence sceptic. They're part of some Nessie worshipping cult (and remember that many people do believe truly bizarre things, so this is not entirely gratuitous)! And they say to you: "Sure, Nessie is a physical entity, but it has the rather extraordinary (indeed unique - and possibily mystical) ability to remain forever beyond detection."
                  They start changing around the definition of the Loch Ness Monster after asking the question - that seems like a very poor way of making a logical argument - why, it's as bad as making square circles.

                  I also think the argument still fails. If I do a good scientific search of Loch Ness and don't find nessie, that gives me a good (ie, rational) reason not to believe in Nessie. It's not bullet proof, but it is rational.

                  On the other hand, if all I know is that there is no evidence or arguments that nessie doesn't exist (and I know nothing about any attempts to prove that nessie does exist) - ie, you have no evidence to suggest one thing or the other, than there is no good (rational) reason to think that nessie does not exist (nor is there a good (rational) reason to believe that nessie does not exist). The rational thing would be to say I don't know.
                  "I read a book twice as fast as anybody else. First, I read the beginning, and then I read the ending, and then I start in the middle and read toward whatever end I like best." - Gracie Allen

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Spiffor

                    Are you that ignorant that you don't know of Nessie's invisibility ? There's a reason he avoided detection for so much time now


                    I think the test is generally consistent. You anti-Nessies should have a look at the site's FAQ, for it adresses the question quite well.

                    Actually, I have taken the "limited god" route, i.e I don't rule out the existence of God entirely, but I don't believe God is omni-anything, and multiple limited gods are about as likely to exist as one omnipotent god (i.e none is proven, and none is disproven). Hack, the belief in Bozo The Great Rabbit ( )as the one and only superior being is as valid as any religious claim.
                    what good does believing in a limited god do? doesn't it instantly beg the question what created him? if the universe needs a maker then surely a limited god needs one as well. so u've done nothing.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Yavoon:
                      I do not believe in any kind of god.

                      I just don't rule out the possiblity of his / their existence.

                      I am not interested in achieving anything with religion, so your problem is not mine.
                      "I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
                      "I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
                      "I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Edan
                        Thanks for the pointer, Boris.

                        IMO, they make a major flaw when they get to this point:



                        They start changing around the definition of the Loch Ness Monster after asking the question - that seems like a very poor way of making a logical argument - why, it's as bad as making square circles.

                        I also think the argument still fails. If I do a good scientific search of Loch Ness and don't find nessie, that gives me a good (ie, rational) reason not to believe in Nessie. It's not bullet proof, but it is rational.

                        On the other hand, if all I know is that there is no evidence or arguments that nessie doesn't exist (and I know nothing about any attempts to prove that nessie does exist), than there is no good (rational) reason to think that nessie does not exist (nor is there a good (rational) reason to believe that nessie does not exist). The rational thing would be to say I don't know.
                        are u implying no1 has searched for god?

                        even when u take that back. creating something that can't be disproven doesn't move it into the "I dont know " category. cuz there's no compelling reason to lend weight to random crap. we would truly be a disastrous civilization if we lended as much weight as u suggest we should to everything that hasn't been disproven.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Spiffor
                          Yavoon:
                          I do not believe in any kind of god.

                          I just don't rule out the possiblity of his / their existence.

                          I am not interested in achieving anything with religion, so your problem is not mine.
                          the problem is not a matter of belief but of logic. u suggest a limited god. I point out the uselessness of such a being.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by yavoon
                            the problem is not a matter of belief but of logic. u suggest a limited god. I point out the uselessness of such a being.
                            Absolutely. Who said God had to be useful ?
                            "I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
                            "I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
                            "I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              One direct hit and ate one bullet.. ouch!

                              this is what I got:

                              "You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.
                              The fact that you progressed through this activity being hit only once and biting very few bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.

                              The direct hit you suffered occurred because one set of your answers implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hit and bitten bullets.

                              Because you only suffered one direct hit and bit very few bullets, you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!"

                              Yeah!
                              In da butt.
                              "Do not worry if others do not understand you. Instead worry if you do not understand others." - Confucius
                              THE UNDEFEATED SUPERCITIZEN w:4 t:2 l:1 (DON'T ASK!)
                              "God is dead" - Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" - God.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Spiffor

                                Absolutely. Who said God had to be useful ?
                                the point is that once u created a limited god u'd instantly have the question "who created him." U've done NOTHING. I know this is repeat but I'm not sure u understand.

                                u r implying that one could logically believe in a limited god and be satisfied that that would solve the issue. but indeed it would not affect the issue in the slightest.

                                Comment

                                Working...