If You're a Christian, Muslim or Jew - You are Wrong (2 Viewers)

[gerhard]

i never realised erawamai was iamaware backwards, until just now

 

[Blissed]

I would love to believe that there is no such thing as God, but unless it can be proven otherwise.. you see, there are certain things that science cannot explain and people will just turn to God for answers. Simply telling people that there is no such thing as God WITHOUT a proof is in fact insane.

 

[TerrbleSpellor]

I would love to believe that there is no such thing as God, but unless it can be proven otherwise.. you see, there are certain things that science cannot explain and people will just turn to God for answers. Simply telling people that there is no such thing as God WITHOUT a proof is in fact insane.

Science can't explain it because it hasn't advanced that far yet. There are many things that religion can't explain...

Following a religion blindly, fearing to enquire about it's authenticity.. Is insane.. Yet billions of people do it everyday.

 

[SashatheMan]

I would love to believe that there is no such thing as God, but unless it can be proven otherwise.. you see, there are certain things that science cannot explain and people will just turn to God for answers. Simply telling people that there is no such thing as God WITHOUT a proof is in fact insane.

oh dear read back please .

this is what moonlight try to drill into your peoples thick skulls.

No, you cannot start with the proposition that "God does exist."

The burden of proof lies on you - please see the argument guide. Similarly you cannot start with the proposition that "a UFO did fly over my house last night" and try and disprove it. You start with either the proposition that a UFO did not fly over, or that you do not know whether one flew over.

(I would also point out that science is the pursuit of truth, so complaining that I am taking an approach that seeks the truth isn't very helpful.)

 

[SashatheMan]

I would love to believe that there is no such thing as God, but unless it can be proven otherwise.. you see, there are certain things that science cannot explain and people will just turn to God for answers. Simply telling people that there is no such thing as God WITHOUT a proof is in fact insane.

oh this will also help you to understand why shifting the burden of truth to non believers is incorrect

Originally Posted by MoonlightSonata
I will answer a few arguments that are half-way attempted --
1. That is very bad logic.

Simply because we do not understand something does not call for the adoption of a fantastical belief that does not actually explain anything at all. This is your argument:

1. There are things that remain unanswered.
2. The concept of God answers those questions.
3. There must be a God.

The argument is logically invalid. Premise 3 does not necessarily follow from Premises 1 & 2. Allow me to demonstrate:

1. I do not know where my socks have gone.
2. The concept of a spider living under my bed that drags my socks away answers that question.
3. There must be a spider living under my bed that drags my socks away.

Your argument is even worse because your Premise 2 is false. God does not answer those questions at all. It only accommodates – it doesn’t actually explain anything. An explanation tells us why something is one way and not another way. But a theory that accommodates anything explains nothing because it doesn’t exclude any possibilities. Accommodating all possibilities makes a theory worthless.

(Not only that, the God version is worse even further because it relates to the supernatural – in contrast at least spiders exist and a spider dragging away socks are physically possible, though very unlikely.)

 

[StGeorgeDragons]

that is so ridiculous. to us christians we understand, "blessed are those who believe and have not seen".

u cannot debate the existance of God it is impossible. we went through all this before. There is No proof or disproof possible.

the closest thing to proof, even though to me its not meant to be proof, are miracles. the vatican investigates them very carefully. these can be seen as some sought of evidence.

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=80008

obviously, ur not gonna believe it for urself until u see it for ur own eyes, many people have and have become believers. many dont have the opportunity to see.

if 3 children said a "heavnly force" said that a miracle would happen at a certain time, then at that time the sun began to change colour and become bigger and smaller, u saw it with ur own eyes, would u become a believer??

for the people that dont see it, but are already believers it really strenghtens ur faith, doesnt give any proof at all, cause its not about proof its about faith. and as i said b4 there isnt gonna be any proof cause that takes away our choice to believe or not, if we didnt have that choice wats the point of living?

im not saying that there are miracles therefore u should believe, just that there is a possbility that they are real, which would then mean there is a God. and the possibility that they are real becomes greater when the investigations are very serious by the vatican, and that people become saints when they have performed more than one miracle, therefore there have been many.

 

[SashatheMan]

someone overcoming a fatal disease is hardly a miracle. Why do these people who perform miracles dont heal everyone with 100 % accuracy? They dont, they come to many terminaly ill people who want some hope in thier life, the miracle worker just speaks abit and thats it. Most die anyway. some recover. However alot of people recover without someones givign them blessing, its called an amune system.

I still havent seen a miracle worker who can cure peoples cancers, tumours and other deseases , and been scientifically tested and proved 100% genuine. There hasnt been such a thing. I hear alot of those people get exposed on current affair, it turns out those mircale workers have been charging a price for thier help and in turn are making a good profit from those "miracles" .

 

[zahid]

I will answer a few arguments that are half-way attempted --
1. That is very bad logic.

Simply because we do not understand something does not call for the adoption of a fantastical belief that does not actually explain anything at all. This is your argument:

1. There are things that remain unanswered.
2. The concept of God answers those questions.
3. There must be a God.

The argument is logically invalid. Premise 3 does not necessarily follow from Premises 1 & 2. Allow me to demonstrate:

1. I do not know where my socks have gone.
2. The concept of a spider living under my bed that drags my socks away answers that question.
3. There must be a spider living under my bed that drags my socks away.

Your argument is even worse because your Premise 2 is false. God does not answer those questions at all. It only accommodates – it doesn’t actually explain anything. An explanation tells us why something is one way and not another way. But a theory that accommodates anything explains nothing because it doesn’t exclude any possibilities. Accommodating all possibilities makes a theory worthless.

(Not only that, the God version is worse even further because it relates to the supernatural – in contrast at least spiders exist and a spider dragging away socks are physically possible, though very unlikely.)


2. We don’t know some things.

In contrast to the ego of some, we are prepared to admit that there are things that still remain unexplained in human knowledge. With every day that goes by science makes further progress to boost that understanding.


3. Bad assumption.

You assume humans have the capacity to understand everything in the universe.


4. Apply your own reasoning.

The exact same thing can be said about religion. There are many, many questions that religion cannot answer, for example "Where did God come from?" So why do you believe in it?


5. Our beliefs have answered our questions, thus far.

Reason and science has not only answered our questions so far, but it has produced material illustrations of its success. Look around at everything you see - the complex workings of machinery, the computer circuitry and the electricity that powers our society. Our civilisation has advanced through the application of reason and it has proven results. It lets us attain truth and understanding. Religion does none of this.

I am afraid there is a few things you not know Moonlight. Obviously you have read not about much about ethics of reasoning/ logic. Ok so I come from an Islamic frame of reference. So lets take that as a prerequisite. Because no matter how much I try to be objective, there may still be some amount “unconscious subjectivity” from my point of view. Ok so lets start.

Now you said the argument was “BAD LOGIC”- but you failed to define BAD LOGIC (giving an example does not qualify as defining, it only does half the job, I am sure you know that) But allow me to do that for you moon.

Bad = awful, dreadful, terrible (remember = does not mean absolutely but rather synonyms….for example say 1= 0.99999999 we accept this as an approximation)

Logic: Derived from reason or cause, it provides us with a foundation or a rationale for something.

So “Bad Logic” the term you coined up implies an “awful, dreadful or terrible derivation for the act of reason”. But your argument seems to falter as you went onto say that:
“Simply because we do not understand something does not call for the adoption of a fantastical belief that does not actually explain anything at all.” Now I will quote Mark Greaser, and allow me to explain why reasoning is so important: ok Mark states that:

“Logic is foundational to ethics, because ethics is reasoning about the rightness or wrongness of conduct. That reasoning can either be logical, and conclusions necessarily derived from premises, or illogical and inconsistent. Logic also helps us to think clearly about what is being argued ethically, and whether the basis of an argument has been assumed, or actually proved."
lets take an example: Many people argue against the death penalty, assuming that because the taking of the life of a person is involved that death is affirmed rather than life.

This conclusion does not follow from the premises. The argument goes something like this. Whatever affirms life should not involve death. For example say the death penalty involves the death of a person. Therefore, the death penalty does not affirm life.

Though this is a valid argument, it is not true because it contains a false premise: the first one. To demonstrate that sometimes death serves life, consider that the near-death experiences of many people have resulted in a much greater appreciation of the value of life, family, health, etc. So in that case, the reality of death served to bring about a greater commitment to life and that which gives life.

Though I must admit I do like your analogy of the spider it’s a nice attempt at logic, it is one that is flawed in attempting to reveal the absurd nature of the reasoning provided earlier that you dismiss.

 

[erawamai]

I am afraid there is a few things you not know Moonlight. Obviously you have read not about much about ethics of reasoning/ logic. Ok so I come from an Islamic frame of reference. So lets take that as a prerequisite. Because no matter how much I try to be objective, there may still be some amount “unconscious subjectivity” from my point of view. Ok so lets start.

Now you said the argument was “BAD LOGIC”- but you failed to define BAD LOGIC (giving an example does not qualify as defining, it only does half the job, I am sure you know that) But allow me to do that for you moon.

Bad = awful, dreadful, terrible (remember = does not mean absolutely but rather synonyms….for example say 1= 0.99999999 we accept this as an approximation)

Logic: Derived from reason or cause, it provides us with a foundation or a rationale for something.

So “Bad Logic” the term you coined up implies an “awful, dreadful or terrible derivation for the act of reason”. But your argument seems to falter as you went onto say that:
“Simply because we do not understand something does not call for the adoption of a fantastical belief that does not actually explain anything at all.” Now I will quote Mark Greaser, and allow me to explain why reasoning is so important: ok Mark states that:

“Logic is foundational to ethics, because ethics is reasoning about the rightness or wrongness of conduct. That reasoning can either be logical, and conclusions necessarily derived from premises, or illogical and inconsistent. Logic also helps us to think clearly about what is being argued ethically, and whether the basis of an argument has been assumed, or actually proved."
lets take an example: Many people argue against the death penalty, assuming that because the taking of the life of a person is involved that death is affirmed rather than life.

This conclusion does not follow from the premises. The argument goes something like this. Whatever affirms life should not involve death. For example say the death penalty involves the death of a person. Therefore, the death penalty does not affirm life.

Though this is a valid argument, it is not true because it contains a false premise: the first one. To demonstrate that sometimes death serves life, consider that the near-death experiences of many people have resulted in a much greater appreciation of the value of life, family, health, etc. So in that case, the reality of death served to bring about a greater commitment to life and that which gives life.

Though I must admit I do like your analogy of the spider it’s a nice attempt at logic, it is one that is flawed in attempting to reveal the absurd nature of the reasoning provided earlier that you dismiss.

Religion is based on 'faith'. Religion itself has very little to do with logic. If it was logical you wouldn't have faith would you?

 

[ManlyChief]

I am afraid there is a few things you not know Moonlight. Obviously you have read not about much about ethics of reasoning/ logic. Ok so I come from an Islamic frame of reference. So lets take that as a prerequisite. Because no matter how much I try to be objective, there may still be some amount “unconscious subjectivity” from my point of view. Ok so lets start.

Now you said the argument was “BAD LOGIC”- but you failed to define BAD LOGIC (giving an example does not qualify as defining, it only does half the job, I am sure you know that) But allow me to do that for you moon.

Actually, he did define 'bad logic' as being any argument composed of a number of premises presented as consequently flowing from each other but which, upon inspection do not:

1. There are things that remain unanswered.
2. The concept of God answers those questions.
3. There must be a God.

The argument is logically invalid. Premise 3 does not necessarily follow from Premises 1 & 2.

That is the definition of bad logic from which his critique proceeds.

But I'm not taking sides - especially on the Sabbath and having just finished Dante's Inferno last night.

 

[gordo]

if god doesn't exist:
if u do beleive in god and u die - nothing happens
if u don;t beleive in god and u die - nothing happens

if god exists:
if u do beleive in god and u die - u go to heaven
if u don't beleive in god and u die - HELLLLLLLLLLLL!!!

therefore do u take the gamble of ignoring god for a mere 90 years of your life and having no consequence or maybe spending eternity in hell,or do you spend a mere 90 years having faith in god so u can spend an eternity in heaven, or else, have nothing happen.

The way I see it, once your dead, you won;t care if nothing happened cause you won;t know, therefore you should only act under the pretense that god exists.

Which is why religions have propogated for 6000 years, (well mine has anyway )

The answer lies within the sphere of self-reflexivity

 

[Capitalist Pig]

if god doesn't exist:
if u do beleive in god and u die - nothing happens
if u don;t beleive in god and u die - nothing happens

if god exists:
if u do beleive in god and u die - u go to heaven
if u don't beleive in god and u die - HELLLLLLLLLLLL!!!

therefore do u take the gamble of ignoring god for a mere 90 years of your life and having no consequence or maybe spending eternity in hell,or do you spend a mere 90 years having faith in god so u can spend an eternity in heaven, or else, have nothing happen.

The way I see it, once your dead, you won;t care if nothing happened cause you won;t know, therefore you should only act under the pretense that god exists.

Which is why religions have propogated for 6000 years, (well mine has anyway )

The answer lies within the sphere of self-reflexivity

Yes but in such a circumstance you're only believing in God for convenience, and you're actually not having much faith at all but playing the odds, so end up in hell if he does exist. Not to mention if he doesn't exist you've changed your eating habits, Sunday ritual, etc for absolutely no gain whatsoever.

 

[SashatheMan]

Actually, he did define 'bad logic' as being any argument composed of a number of premises presented as consequently flowing from each other but which, upon inspection do not:



That is the definition of bad logic from which his critique proceeds.

But I'm not taking sides - especially on the Sabbath and having just finished Dante's Inferno last night.

zahid , this guy is correct, moonlight gives you definition of bad logic. that is the definition of bad logic.

 

[stainmepink]

if 3 children said a "heavnly force" said that a miracle would happen at a certain time, then at that time the sun began to change colour and become bigger and smaller, u saw it with ur own eyes, would u become a believer?

wtf are you talking about? obviously that hasn't happened yet so your argument is total crass. god only exists now adays as a comfy idea of a big papa in the sky looking down at us blessing us. ever wondered why religion was abused in the past? religion was a form of mass control, it basically got the poor to think:L

"wow the king is taking all my taxes, but thats ok! i mean, i live a shit life and all, but since the king is connected to god, i'll sit here and keep slaving for him until i die then i'll get a really cool afterlife"

which is freaking idiotic. it kept people under the states control. and now that theyre trying to implement this stupid "scientific" concept into the science curriculum... its really making me angry. religion isn't a scientific concept. there is no proof for the existence of god and there is counter proof. believing in religion is ironically the exact opposite of "enlightenment". Religion hampers progress in society, and it restricts us from finding the real truth and workings of the world. go and have a read about all those scientists who were procecuted due to their heliocentric model of the universe. it was all religions fault. the witch hunts were also religions fault. religion continues to hamper our society today, restricting people the rights they deserve especially women. ( abortion drug)

 

[SashatheMan]

dont forget about the stem cell research. Religious fanatics believe that life starts right from the first cell. its ridiculous to put all these laws restricting countries performing scientific research that could potentially help man kind just becuase religious people see it as killing lives. if anyone its the religious people that kill lies of those terminally ill who could have been spared with more advanced research.

scientists who actualyl want to do more reasearch have to go from Australia, America and other developed countries, to countried where there hasnt been a law passed yet restricting this type of experiments. thats oppression to the scientific community by the evil church

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Now you said the argument was “BAD LOGIC”- but you failed to define BAD LOGIC (giving an example does not qualify as defining, it only does half the job, I am sure you know that) But allow me to do that for you moon.

Bad = awful, dreadful, terrible (remember = does not mean absolutely but rather synonyms….for example say 1= 0.99999999 we accept this as an approximation)

Logic: Derived from reason or cause, it provides us with a foundation or a rationale for something.

Incorrect. I explained everything, as set out by various people posting in reply, above.

Please acquaint yourself with deductive reasoning.

So “Bad Logic” the term you coined up implies an “awful, dreadful or terrible derivation for the act of reason.”

You latched onto my first sentence and completely ignored the rest of my post, which explained how it was bad. I did not "coin" the bad logic phrase. I expounded on what I meant by showing how your argument was deductively invalid. If you need help understanding deductive reasoning I can help you -- you just need to ask.

But your argument seems to falter as you went onto say that:
“Simply because we do not understand something does not call for the adoption of a fantastical belief that does not actually explain anything at all.” Now I will quote Mark Greaser, and allow me to explain why reasoning is so important: ok Mark states that:

“Logic is foundational to ethics, because ethics is reasoning about the rightness or wrongness of conduct. That reasoning can either be logical, and conclusions necessarily derived from premises, or illogical and inconsistent. Logic also helps us to think clearly about what is being argued ethically, and whether the basis of an argument has been assumed, or actually proved."

Yes. The point?

lets take an example: Many people argue against the death penalty, assuming that because the taking of the life of a person is involved that death is affirmed rather than life.

This conclusion does not follow from the premises. The argument goes something like this. Whatever affirms life should not involve death. For example say the death penalty involves the death of a person. Therefore, the death penalty does not affirm life.

Though this is a valid argument, it is not true because it contains a false premise: the first one. To demonstrate that sometimes death serves life, consider that the near-death experiences of many people have resulted in a much greater appreciation of the value of life, family, health, etc. So in that case, the reality of death served to bring about a greater commitment to life and that which gives life.

Thankyou but it is not necessary to illustrate the basics of reasoning. I know how to reason, and I am more learned in it than you are.

Though I must admit I do like your analogy of the spider it’s a nice attempt at logic, it is one that is flawed in attempting to reveal the absurd nature of the reasoning provided earlier that you dismiss.

How?

 

[StGeorgeDragons]

wtf are you talking about? obviously that hasn't happened yet so your argument is total crass.

it did happen and there were thousands to prove it.

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/apparitions/pr00011.htm

 

[zahid]

I know how to reason, and I am more learned in it than you are.

Of course...you are a third yr Law Student...I am a mere HSC graduate...obviously the fact that you have spent many years in tertiary life equates to your superiority in reasoning compared to me...right? (I want you to answer this question)

Now I never said that "you DO not know how to reason" all I said that "you fail to Do so". But what the fuck do I know...nothing much.

 

[erawamai]

I am afraid there is a few things you not know Moonlight. Obviously you have read not about much about ethics of reasoning/ logic. Ok so I come from an Islamic frame of reference. So lets take that as a prerequisite. Because no matter how much I try to be objective, there may still be some amount “unconscious subjectivity” from my point of view. Ok so lets start.

Now you said the argument was “BAD LOGIC”- but you failed to define BAD LOGIC (giving an example does not qualify as defining, it only does half the job, I am sure you know that) But allow me to do that for you moon.

Though I must admit I do like your analogy of the spider it’s a nice attempt at logic, it is one that is flawed in attempting to reveal the absurd nature of the reasoning provided earlier that you dismiss.

Religion is based on 'faith'. If religion was logical you wouldnt have faith would you? You would have something other than faith.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Of course...you are a third yr Law Student...I am a mere HSC graduate...obviously the fact that you have spent many years in tertiary life equates to your superiority in reasoning compared to me...right? (I want you to answer this question)

No, the fact that you don't know what deductive reasoning is shows me that.

Now I never said that "you DO not know how to reason" all I said that "you fail to Do so". But what the fuck do I know...nothing much.

Actually you implied that quite strongly:

I am afraid there is a few things you not know Moonlight. Obviously you have read not about much about ethics of reasoning/ logic.