Could religion ever die?

TheThing!

DublinWriter wrote: »

*crosses fingers* Ganesh! Ganesh! Ganesh!

No shut up its Thor

Fanny Cradock

TheThing! wrote: »

What is it then, because you would be the first to find any

Oh, a pithy reply. Good show!

robindch wrote: »

A red rag in an atheist forum, but, please, pray tell?

Ha ha. Indeed! Well, it has been mentioned many times before, but I would consider the personal testimony of believers to be evidence. Further to this, I would also consider the Bible to be documented evidence.

Now I'm not in the least bit interested in steering this thread off course. If one wants to debate the validity of these evidences I suggest they start a new thread or resurrect of the many old ones on the subject.

Back to the matter at hand. As subjective as this evidence I've mentioned is, in the manner of a God not testable, it is worth due consideration. Irrespective of your final decision on the reliability of said evidence (and I've not provided an exhaustive list), is a statement rooted in ignorance rather than reason to declare that there is no evidence. Definitive proof - No (for neither side of the arguement, that is). Evidence - Yes.

DublinWriter

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Further to this, I would also consider the Bible to be documented evidence.

Which version?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

but I would consider the personal testimony of believers to be evidence...Definitive proof - No (for either side of the arguement). Evidence - Yes.

Personal testimony as evidence? Walk into any Insane Asylum and there will be plenty of folk claiming to be Queen Victoria, Napoleon XIV and the Son of Sam. Should we consider their testimony to be evidence of reincarnation?

Fanny Cradock

DublinWriter wrote: »

Personal testimony as evidence? Walk into any Insane Asylum and there will be plenty of folk claiming to be Queen Victoria, Napoleon XIV and the Son of Sam. Should we consider their testimony to be evidence of reincarnation?

Ah! So anyone with a belief in the divine is to be considered as unreliable a witness as a nut job in an asylum? Now that The Thing!, is a good example how to set up a straw man arguement.

TheThing!

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Oh, a pithy reply. Good show!




Ha ha. Indeed! Well, it has been mentioned many times before, but I would consider the personal testimony of believers to be evidence. Further to this, I would also consider the Bible to be documented evidence.

Now I'm not in the least bit interested in steering this thread off course. If one wants to debate the validity of these evidences I suggest they start a new thread or resurrect of the many old ones on the subject.

Back to the matter at hand. As subjective as this evidence I've mentioned is, in the manner of a God not testable, it is worth due consideration. Irrespective of your final decision on the reliability of said evidence (and I've not provided an exhaustive list), is a statement rooted in ignorance rather than reason to declare that there is no evidence. Definitive proof - No (for either side of the arguement). Evidence - Yes.

A pithy reply? Why would I bother? I am not here to entertain you

Suggesting that the bible in any way represents evidence is ridiculous bordering on hilarious. It is literally like saying the Lord of the Rings books are evidence for the existence of Hobbits. Not only that, it is possibly one of the most self contradictory and backward peices of literature ever produced

condra

Fanny, lunatics aside, there are people of all religions and in all times going back thousands of years, who claim to have witnessed devinity. They can't all be right, can they?

While I agree that testimonials should be considered evidence, they tend to carry very little weight. The testimony of some kids in Medjugorje or Fatima means nothing. Maybe you can give some really solid examples that are hard to refute, someone growing back a limb for example?

I appreciate that you are trying to argue that religion is rational, but it can not be considered rational unless there is enough evidence to support it.

SubjectSean

TheThing! wrote: »

Atheists do accept that a first cause had to exist, they just dont accept the ridiculous notion that this was a divine creator. Believing that creates more questions than it answers.

I'm not at all sure that this is a valid rationale for dismissing the possibility of a creator. I take it that by divine you mean some personal transcendent god like the 3for1 God of the Christians and quite clearly this is not credible. Equally ridiculous to me though is the notion that the universe happened out of nothing and is all one big random accident whereby quarks got up and talked. I had, from impressions given by atheists I'd met in the past, formed the opinion that this is what atheists believe. Since posting the post you replied to however I have read up a bit on atheism and now understand that many atheists do believe in a prime cause and some of them even believe ths prime cause to be God. Apparently, and somewhat surprisingly for me, I am amongst the latter type of atheist.

TheThing! wrote: »

And your second statement, I dont know how you could believe that most of the progress made by humanity would not have happended without our belief in god. I would argue that a lot of it happened in spite of our belief in god.

I understand what you're saying but I think that such an argument rests on the great wrongs done by organised religion. On the other hand I think that on a personal level, the religion of personal conviction, faith in God has inspired people to move towards their goals and has given them support in doing this. I believe that this divine inspiration, misguided as you would have it, or not, has been a major factor in our advancement as a species. Our finest scientists and thinkers have all been grounded in a belief in God and religion.

Fanny Cradock

TheThing! wrote: »

I am not here to entertain you

Well you have been a man of your word up until now . I'll hold you to that.

TheThing! wrote: »

Suggesting that the bible in any way represents evidence is ridiculous bordering on hilarious. It is literally like saying the Lord of the Rings books are evidence for the existence of Hobbits.

Lord of the Rings! You are really getting the hang of this straw man thing, no?

To me it seems as if you are stating that there is no evidence for God, and anything contrary to this belief is laughable. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. I don't wish to put words into your mouth :rolleyes:. Your subjective interpretation of the authority of the Bible is just that - a matter of personal opinion. In light of this, it carries no weight whether or not you find the notion of the Bible being submitted as evidence funnier than Billy Connelly.

For example, the Bible offers Primary accounts of Jesus' life. If you wish to dismiss those accounts as a matter of fact that is your decision. It is, however, not your decision to dictate if they are to be rejected the status of witness accounts because of your clear bias.

womoma wrote: »

Fanny, lunatics aside, there are people of all religions and in all times going back thousands of years, who claim to have witnessed devinity. They can't all be right, can they?

No, they can't all be right. But then again I've never met anyone who would claim that they are. The world is full of disturbed people - religious and otherwise. However, it doesn't seem particularly logical to dismiss all claims as a matter of course - and I freely admit would personally be sceptical about many - based on these people.

womoma wrote: »

While I agree that testimonials should be considered evidence, they tend to carry very little weight. The testimony of some kids in Medjugorje or Fatima means nothing. Maybe you can give some really solid examples that are hard to refute, someone growing back a limb for example?

I wonder how many of these testimonial have you actually heard? No matter. Again, it seems to be a common occurrence in this thread that personal opinion is used to dictate the validity of evidence.

womoma wrote: »

I appreciate that you are trying to argue that religion is rational, but it can not be considered rational unless there is enough evidence to support it.

I seem to remember that there were a number of people who claimed that they still believe after they saw a miraculous event. See the unfortunately entitled thread: If you seen for yourself would you believe?. I personally don't have any such miraculous stories, I think they are far rarer than reported. But it seem clear to me that some would reject them no matter what.

TheThing!

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well you have been a man of your word up until now . I'll hold you to that.



Lord of the Rings! You are really getting the hang of this straw man thing, no?

To me it seems as if you are stating that there is no evidence for God, and anything contrary to this belief is laughable. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. I don't wish to put words into your mouth :rolleyes:. Your subjective interpretation of the authority of the Bible is just that - a matter of personal opinion. In light of this, it carries no weight whether or not you find the notion of the Bible being submitted as evidence funnier than Billy Connelly.

For example, the Bible offers Primary accounts of Jesus' life. If you wish to dismiss those accounts as a matter of fact that is your decision. It is, however, not your decision to dictate if they are to be rejected the status of witness accounts because of your clear bias.


No, they can't all be right. But then again I've never met anyone who would claim that they are. The world is full of disturbed people - religious and otherwise. However, it doesn't seem particularly logical to dismiss all claims as a matter of course - and I freely admit would personally be sceptical about many - based on these people.


I wonder how many of these testimonial have you actually heard? No matter. Again, it seems to be a common occurrence in this thread that personal opinion is used to dictate the validity of evidence.


I seem to remember that there were a number of people who claimed that they still believe after they saw a miraculous event. See the unfortunately entitled thread: If you seen for yourself would you believe?. I personally don't have any such miraculous stories, I think they are far rarer than reported. But it seem clear to me that some would reject them no matter what.

You dont have the first clue what a straw man argument is but that is off topic. And how about from this point on we assume that you are hilarious and witty, you dont have to keep trying to prove that to us.

By the way how the hell did this whole thing start? Go back and read the title of the thread, and we can just agree to disagree about the existence of god, it is obvious that neither one of us is going to be convinced

robindch

Fanny Craddock wrote:

I would consider the personal testimony of believers to be evidence. Further to this, I would also consider the Bible to be documented evidence.

You are free to choose whatever evidence you like. But if you choose to accept third-party experience, then you must then explain why you accept the truth of at least some accounts of the religious experiences undergone by your co-religionists, while you reject virtually identical experiences undergone by others who are not your co-religionists. Within sociological and anthropological literature, it's well known that christians tend to have visions of, and occasionally intense personal interations with, the christian god and Jesus, muslims of the islamic god and Mohammad, hindus of Krishna/Ganesh etc, animists of wood-spirits and so on, and to a greater or lesser degree, the reported experiences are very similar indeed. Did you not know that this happens, and that there's an important unresolved problem in accepting such reports as evidence?

And you have an identical problem with the accuracy of the bible. Why is it that you accept the accounts in this book, while you reject roughly equivalent accounts of miraculous happenings in islamic, hindu, shinto and other religious texts?

Fanny Cradock

TheThing! wrote: »

You dont have the first clue what a straw man argument is but that is off topic. And how about from this point on we assume that you are hilarious and witty, you dont have to keep trying to prove that to us.

I'm pretty sure I can detect a straw man arguement if I see one - even the beginnings of one. Feel free to impart your knowledge to me via PM, though.

I'm sorry to see that you can't take a playful jibe. Did I hit a nerve there?

TheThing! wrote: »

By the way how the hell did this whole thing start? Go back and read the title of the thread, and we can just agree to disagree about the existence of god, it is obvious that neither one of us is going to be convinced

See below for what began it all.

TheThing! wrote: »

You believing otherwise, or a billion christians believing otherwise, doesn't invalidate the fact that there is not evidence for god or any of the claims of all the various religions that subcribe to these views

I'm fully aware of the thread's title, so there is no need for me to re-read it. Anyway, it may be true that neither of us will ever be convinced, but I'll hold out hope that you will see the light

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

You are free to choose whatever evidence you like. But if you choose to accept third-party experience, then you must then explain why you accept the truth of at least some accounts of the religious experiences undergone by your co-religionists, while you reject virtually identical experiences undergone by others who are not your co-religionists. Within sociological and anthropological literature, it's well known that christians tend to have visions of, and occasionally intense personal interations with, the christian god and Jesus, muslims of the islamic god and Mohammad, hindus of Krishna/Ganesh etc, animists of wood-spirits and so on, and to a greater or lesser degree, the reported experiences are very similar indeed. Did you not know that this happens, and that there's an important unresolved problem in accepting such reports as evidence?

And you have an identical problem with the accuracy of the bible. Why is it that you accept the accounts in this book, while you reject roughly equivalent accounts of miraculous happenings in islamic, hindu, shinto and other religious texts?

All valid questions, Robin. However, I'm not here to defend the Bible or first-hand Christian testimonies over other religious experiences. There are people more able than myself in that regard. But if you wish to start to new thread on the matter, or revive an old one, I may chip in.

My point in raising this issue was to specifically rebut The Thing!'s claim that there is no evidence for God.

condra

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I wonder how many of these testimonial have you actually heard?

I have heard testimonials from a ton of theists, including friends, an x girlfriend, stuff in the papers, online etc, even my own mother, who claims to have had a near death experience. Of course, when I asked what Jesus looked like, he was young, white and bearded.

I have invited you to cite any testimonials which are supported strongly by evidence, such as a limb growing back, but appearantly there are no such testimonials.

I personally don't have any such miraculous stories, I think they are far rarer than reported. But it seem clear to me that some would reject them no matter what.

I think someones lost limb growing back would be taken very seriously indeed, but irrefutable evidence is at odds with free will, so we're all fecked.

Pompey Magnus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

For example, the Bible offers Primary accounts of Jesus' life. If you wish to dismiss those accounts as a matter of fact that is your decision. It is, however, not your decision to dictate if they are to be rejected the status of witness accounts because of your clear bias.

The Gospel accounts are not primary evidence because none of the writers were present for any of the events of Jesus' life (if he did exist). Similarly any accounts of Jesus given by St Paul were as a result of him seeing visions. Anyone today who says God talks to them personally and they sees visions would be serious candidates for the looney bin, but because Paul lived 2000 years ago he is seen as a witness to Christ. Talk about lowering the standards.

TheBigLebowski

PDN wrote: »

You are on a journey to Dublin and you reach a crossroads. Three of the possible routes are dirt tracks with handwritten signs saying "This way to Dublin". The fourth choice is a proper road with a proper signpost indicating that it leads to Dublin. Since there is only a 1 in 4 chance of picking the right road much better to reject them all and sit on your backside at the crossroads for the rest of your life, no?

But this argument is invalid because it assumes that one is already on a route to Dublin i.e. your route has already been chosen.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

So religious truth is something that's decided by majority vote?

WARNING! FLYING LEAP OF LOGIC APPROACHING

1. Robin: Since there are so many different religions surely the chances of choosing the correct one is tiny.
2. PDN: No, if Christianity is correct (as I believe) then the chances would appear to be about one in three since about a third of the world's population is Christian.
3. Robin: So religious truth is something that's decided by majority vote?

How in the name of anything do you get to point 3 from point 2? Absolutely Priceless.

Ciaran500

PDN wrote: »

How in the name of anything do you get to point 3 from point 2?

Its all about having faith

PDN

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

But this argument is invalid because it assumes that one is already on a route to Dublin i.e. your route has already been chosen.

No, it assumes that your destination has already been chosen, not your route. Also, it was in response to post #38 which was referring to the many religious options available (ie different routes purporting to take you to the destination of truth about God). Therefore my analogy makes a fair point. The existence of competing truth claims does not logically mean that it is safer to do nothing.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

1. Robin: Since there are so many different religions surely the chances of choosing the correct one is tiny.
2. PDN: No, if Christianity is correct (as I believe) then the chances would appear to be about one in three since about a third of the world's population is Christian.

Hmmm, but how did you get from point 1 to point 2...?

There are, say, a thousand different religions, so unless you are applying weight to the numbers who believe them your odds of believing the right one remain one thousand to one.

Zombrex

womoma wrote: »

Of course, when I asked what Jesus looked like, he was young, white and bearded.

Nail on the head TBH.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

WARNING! FLYING LEAP OF LOGIC APPROACHING

1. Robin: Since there are so many different religions surely the chances of choosing the correct one is tiny.
2. PDN: No, if Christianity is correct (as I believe) then the chances would appear to be about one in three since about a third of the world's population is Christian.
3. Robin: So religious truth is something that's decided by majority vote?

How in the name of anything do you get to point 3 from point 2? Absolutely Priceless.

Robin is pointing out the flaw in your "1 in 3" argument.

The number of people who believe in something does not mean it is some how more valid a chance of being the "correct" religion than a religion that has less people believing in it (ie religious truth is not something decided by a vote from the majority)

As Dades points out there are and have been hundreds of thousands of religions throughout human history. Your odds that Christianity is correct is very small.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

My point in raising this issue was to specifically rebut The Thing!'s claim that there is no evidence for God.

Well you didn't do a very good job.

I suppose it depends on what one means by "evidence"

Is the ramblings of the guy down the pub evidence that Elvis is still alive? Possibly, but its not what one would call compelling evidence.

What you claim is evidence is not really evidence of anything.

PDN

Dades wrote: »

Hmmm, but how did you get from point 1 to point 2...?

There are, say, a thousand different religions, so unless you are applying weight to the numbers who believe them your odds of believing the right one remain one thousand to one.

Not so. If the odds of believing in any one religion were one thousand to one then, statistically, you would be bound to have 1000 religions with an equal number of adherents. The weight of numbers has no bearing on which religion is true, but it does obviously have bearing on the odds of believing in any particular religion.

Therefore it is perfectly correct for me to say that, if Christianity is true, then the odds of believing in the right religion are about three to one. It would also be true, for example, to say that if Jainism is true then the odds of believing in the right religion are about two thousand to one.

The argument that a multiplicity of choices on a particular subject renders it unlikely that any one choice is right is not a good one. We could cite any number of reductio ad absurdum examples.

robindch

PDN wrote:

the chances of someone believing the right one are about one in three and improving every day. [...] How in the name of anything do you get to point 3 from point 2? Absolutely Priceless.

PDN's proposition: I believe one-third of the world believes what I do and I believe I'm right.
PDN's conclusion: A random human will have a one-in-three chance of believing the right religion.
PDN's logic-defying leap of faith: The chances of believing the right religion are proportional to the percentage of believers within a given population.
My observation: PDN seems to believe that religious truth is decided by majority.

An interesting viewpoint for somebody who claims that it's the bible which determines the truth.

robindch

PDN wrote:

The weight of numbers has no bearing on which religion is true

Ah, you agree with me then!

The conceptual error you're making is that you are not giving equal consideration to the possibility of the truth or otherwise of all other religions.

Assuming a population of n religions, each of which has an equal chance of being true (and ignoring the distinct possibility that all are wrong), then the chances of a random human believing the right one is 1/n. So, if we have one thousand religions, then the chance if believing the right one are 0.1%.

The chances of a random human believing your religion (however you define it) is one in three. But as you correctly clarified above, that's got nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not you, or the random human, are right.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

PDN's proposition: I believe one-third of the world believes what I do and I believe I'm right.
PDN's conclusion: A random human will have a one-in-three chance of believing the right religion.
PDN's logic-defying leap of faith: The chances of believing the right religion are proportional to the percentage of believers within a given population.
My observation: PDN seems to believe that religious truth is decided by majority.

An interesting viewpoint for somebody who claims that it's the bible which determines the truth.

If I believed that religious truth were decided by the majority then I would argue that Christianity is false, since two thirds of the population of the earth do not accept Christianity.

Have you got a mental block here or are you deliberately misrepresenting me?

I'm going to assume it's a mental block - so let's give this one more go.

1. The percentage of believers in any proposition (religious or not) clearly does indicate the chances of a random individual believing that proposition. For example, if two thirds of the inhabitants of the USA believe in Creationism then it is fair to say that the odds of a random member of that community believing in Creationism are two in three. Similarly, if only 10% of Swedes believe in Creationism then the odds of a random Swede accepting Creationism are one in ten.

2. Since Creationism is either true or false, then the chances of an individual believing the truth about Creationism will vary according to their geographical location. So, if Creationism is false then the odds are 9 in 10 that a random Swede will hold a correct belief and one in three that a random American will hold the correct belief concerning Creationism. If Creationism is true then there is a one in ten chance that a random Swede will hold the correct belief, and a two in three chance that a random American will hold the correct belief. Therefore, even if we disagree what the truth is, it is clear that the chances of believing a given proposition are proportionate to the numbers of people in a given population who subscribe to that belief.

3. Only the most befuddled relativist would claim that the previous two points amount to a belief that the truth or otherwise of Creationism is decided by a majority vote. If Creationism is false when believed by a minority in Sweden then it will still be false when embraced by a majority in the USA.

4. Therefore we can logically conclude that although the chances of believing a given proposition are proportionate to the numbers of people in a given population who subscribe to that belief, that in no way determines which propositions are true and which are untrue.

5. Therefore it is illogical to argue that the presence of many different options necessarily means that the odds of believing the correct option are small. However, it takes a leap of logic of Beamonesque magnitude to use that as a basis for stating that I believe religious truth to be decided by majority.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Ah, you agree with me then!

The conceptual error you're making is that you are not giving equal consideration to the possibility of the truth or otherwise of all other religions.

Assuming a population of n religions, each of which has an equal chance of being true (and ignoring the distinct possibility that all are wrong), then the chances of a random human believing the right one is 1/n. So, if we have one thousand religions, then the chance if believing the right one are 0.1%.

The chances of a random human believing your religion (however you define it) is one in three. But as you correctly clarified above, that's got nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not you, or the random human, are right.

You make an unwarranted assumption that all religious viewpoints are equally likely to be true, but let me ask you a philosophical question which suggests your assumption is not reasonable.

There are many suggested explanations for how the earth came into existence. If I, in a fit of creativity, were to suggest ten new theories (eg that the earth was laid as an egg by a gigantic heavenly lizard etc), would the existence of these new theories thereby diminish the odds of every other theory being correct?

5uspect

So whats the point? You're still assuming that Christianity is true and then start ignoring that huge assumption and talk in circles about percentages. I think everyone gets that you don't accept the majority view as the truth.

PDN wrote:

Therefore it is perfectly correct for me to say that, if Christianity is true, then the odds of believing in the right religion are about three to one. It would also be true, for example, to say that if Jainism is true then the odds of believing in the right religion are about two thousand to one.

And if Man Utd is the best ice hockey team in the world it would be perfectly true that as a Man United supporter you support the best ice hockey team in the world.

However we haven't established that Man Utd play ice hockey.

PDN

5uspect wrote: »

So whats the point? You're still assuming that Christianity is true and then start ignoring that huge assumption and talk in circles about percentages. I think everyone gets that you don't accept the majority view as the truth.

The point is that I was refuting an invalid argument and as a result got hit with a false accusation.

5uspect

PDN wrote: »

You make an unwarranted assumption that all religious viewpoints are equally likely to be true, but let me ask you a philosophical question which suggests your assumption is not reasonable.

There are many suggested explanations for how the earth came into existence. If I, in a fit of creativity, were to suggest ten new theories (eg that the earth was laid as an egg by a gigantic heavenly lizard etc), would the existence of these new theories thereby diminish the odds of every other theory being correct?

Praise to the heavenly lizard, bringer of the yoke of life.
First of all I suspect your use of the word theory is intentional?
There is no evidence to suggest any of these theories is true. There my be evidence of the existence of Jesus or other historical people/places but no evidence of divine intervention of any kind.

Consequently they are all equally valid and invalid. Since there are an infinite number of creative possibilities we can come up with, thinking up new ones doesn't suddenly make the old theories any less invalid.

Now Geology has Scientific Theories about how the earth came into existence. There have been many hypothesis but the current models are backed up by the majority of the evidence. Consequently they get greater weight.