What makes religion okay?

[Cris]

lg,

whatever religions may do, you made the statement

No religious belief has any basis in fact

this is an absolute statement
It is also a negative statement
hence, absolute negative

once again, if you believe you are right, you have to demonstrate how you have all the facts of all religions and how they have no basis.

Anything less and you are making a fallacious statement

“ Instead they go out of their way to stress their beliefs are based on FAITH. Which is specifically belief in the ABSENCE of facts.

Any reasonable person should have no doubt that there is no religion that has a factual basis. And until at least one of them can show a single fact then my assertion that none of them have any is completely justifiable. ”

hence a more accurate statement would be something like, "If a religion is based on facts, I am not aware of it"

Gee - why be so damn verbose. If you think I'm wrong quote a friggin fact and end the argument.

You can't because there isn't any. If there was you'd be screaming it at us.

Come on be real - there is no single fact to support any religious belief. And you know it. Admit it and be honest for once.

 

[lightgigantic]

The question is about the belief itself. Why would you ridicule, (the word will suffice for the example), a man that claims he believes in and worships a giant scorpion being but not expect ridicule for your own beliefs which are ultimately equal in their level of irrationality?

Saying you have morals would prove pointless, or that your system of beliefs has assigned moral values.. That in itself does not negate the irrationality of the belief, the faith.

Here is his second post statement for you:

"The hypothetical person who believes in the Scorpion Gods and the real people who believe in God are just as irrational as each other, so what makes one right and one wrong?"

Both beliefs are worthy of equal ridicule but you would espouse that yours isn't because...?

Remember lg, the belief - not side issues like morality given that the scorpion worshipper could be equally or more moral but that does not give the belief any merit.

I'm not aware of any social or moral systems (regardless of whether they are enduring or not) that are not based on some philosophical system.

In other words its not clear how (or why) some one would separate belief from philosophy, much like the parallel analogy I gave about justice appears equally strange since it is also divorced from any philosophical reasoning
:shrug:.

 

[lightgigantic]

lg,

Gee - why be so damn verbose. If you think I'm wrong quote a friggin fact and end the argument.

Once again, there is no need
Absolute negatives don't warrant any further detailed discussion
The reason is of course because absolute negatives can only be deemed valid according to belief.

You can't because there isn't any. If there was you'd be screaming it at us.

no point screaming at a person to change their beliefs
progressive discussion begins from the point of ""If a religion is based on facts, I am not aware of it" as opposed to "No religious belief has any basis in fact"

Come on be real - there is no single fact to support any religious belief. And you know it. Admit it and be honest for once.

you make a statement that is an absolute negative
I point it out to you
And therefore I am dishonest?

 

[SnakeLord]

In other words its not clear how (or why) some one would separate belief from philosophy, much like the parallel analogy I gave about justice appears equally strange since it is also divorced from any philosophical reasoning

It should be more than clear. Perhaps it's an idea to go back and read my post again.

As you might recall, I know Lenny the leprechaun. I have the Book of Lenny which has a vast array of moral rules, social rules and so on. How do any of those aspects make my belief [knowledge] in Lenny any more rational? Well?

 

[lightgigantic]

It should be more than clear. Perhaps it's an idea to go back and read my post again.

As you might recall, I know Lenny the leprechaun. I have the Book of Lenny which has a vast array of moral rules, social rules and so on. How do any of those aspects make my belief [knowledge] in Lenny any more rational? Well?

Before we begin a serious investigation of the enduring social, moral and philosophical systems produced by lenny leprechaunism, you might have to convince us that you are not merely an atheist offering a rhetorical argument

(IOW it appears you are offering a philosophical system of atheism, as opposed to a philosophical system of theism)

 

[SnakeLord]

Before we begin a serious investigation of the enduring social, moral and philosophical systems produced by lenny leprechaunism, you might have to convince us that you are not merely an atheist offering a rhetorical argument

Likewise you might have to convince us that you're not just talking out of your anus with regards to your god beings.

So.. as it stands, can you say why your beliefs in gods should not be considered as irrational to the same degree as the scorpion god belief?

 

[lightgigantic]

Likewise you might have to convince us that you're not just talking out of your anus with regards to your god beings.

once again, it's easy to indicate enduring social, moral and philosophical systems (outside of my hearsay, or anus, if you prefer)

So.. as it stands, can you say why your beliefs in gods should not be considered as irrational to the same degree as the scorpion god belief?

I can easily indicate enduring social,moral and philosophical systems in regards to god.
When I take a cursory look at the belief of scorpion gods, perhaps I can scratch a few animistic examples, but otherwise, going from this thread, all I have to work with is a circle of sneering atheists offering rhetorical arguments.
Needless to say, animistic religions are not famous for contributing elaborate philosophical systems, but at least they can offer something substantial as opposed to the hearsay of rhetorical atheists.

 

[SnakeLord]

once again, it's easy to indicate enduring social, moral and philosophical systems (outside of my hearsay, or anus, if you prefer)

Once again, what is it you think moral and social systems actually do to show that some claimed entity actually exists?

I can easily indicate enduring social,moral and philosophical systems in regards to god.
When I take a cursory look at the belief of scorpion gods, perhaps I can scratch a few animistic examples, but otherwise, going from this thread, all I have to work with is a circle of sneering atheists offering rhetorical arguments.

Once again, what is it you think moral, social blah blah actually does to establish the existence of claimed beings?

but at least they can offer something substantial as opposed to the hearsay of rhetorical atheists.

This is the exact point. For some reason you think you're justified in ridiculing others, (while not being qualified - which has always been your key argument), but why do you think you do not deserve ridicule back? What do you think makes your belief in those blue gods of yours in any way rational?

(Note: I am a moral person, the Book of Lenny has moral/social systems etc. How do they establish that Lenny exists?)

 

[Myles]

once again, it's easy to indicate enduring social, moral and philosophical systems (outside of my hearsay, or anus, if you prefer)


I can easily indicate enduring social,moral and philosophical systems in regards to god.
When I take a cursory look at the belief of scorpion gods, perhaps I can scratch a few animistic examples, but otherwise, going from this thread, all I have to work with is a circle of sneering atheists offering rhetorical arguments.
Needless to say, animistic religions are not famous for contributing elaborate philosophical systems, but at least they can offer something substantial as opposed to the hearsay of rhetorical atheists.

You can indicate nothing in my experience. I'm still waiting for your example of an anthropic argument to support atheism. How about it ?

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

once again, it's easy to indicate enduring social, moral and philosophical systems (outside of my hearsay, or anus, if you prefer)
”
Once again, what is it you think moral and social systems actually do to show that some claimed entity actually exists?

To argue that because the worship of two scorpions is absurd, the worship of god is absurd, is not even a coherent argument

“
I can easily indicate enduring social,moral and philosophical systems in regards to god.
When I take a cursory look at the belief of scorpion gods, perhaps I can scratch a few animistic examples, but otherwise, going from this thread, all I have to work with is a circle of sneering atheists offering rhetorical arguments.
”
Once again, what is it you think moral, social blah blah actually does to establish the existence of claimed beings?

you don't think philosophy is a good tool to determine validity?

“
but at least they can offer something substantial as opposed to the hearsay of rhetorical atheists.
”
This is the exact point. For some reason you think you're justified in ridiculing others, (while not being qualified - which has always been your key argument), but why do you think you do not deserve ridicule back? What do you think makes your belief in those blue gods of yours in any way rational?

in short - philosophy
animism has very little philosophy
rhetorical arguments have practically none

(Note: I am a moral person, the Book of Lenny has moral/social systems etc. How do they establish that Lenny exists?)

meh
more rhetoric

 

[lightgigantic]

You can indicate nothing in my experience.

You come from a society that doesn't have laws?

 

[Myles]

You come from a society that doesn't have laws?

All societies have laws, rules, taboos and so on. God not necessary.

Worshiping scorpions means that we know we are worshiping something that exists. God is a worse bet

 

[lightgigantic]

All societies have laws, rules, taboos and so on. God not necessary.

only if you can indicate a society that has developed outside of any reactions or influences to religiosity

Worshiping scorpions means that we know we are worshiping something that exists. God is a worse bet

well I guess everyone has to start somewhere

 

[Cris]

lg,

You dont seem to have any relevant point. If you think any religion has a factual basis then all you have to do is quote the facts. We both know very well that there are absolutely no facts to support religious claims and we know equally well you are incapable of quoting any.

Humans have been around for about 20,000 years and have invented countless religions and superstitions, and in all that time not a single fact has been shown to support any of those claims. So how many more thousands of years do you suggest we wait before we can be sure that religions have no factual basis?

So please stop your absurd semantic nit picking and simply admit religious ideas are not based on fact. Surely it must be as obvious to you as it is to me. So what's your hang-up about not admitting such a simple obvious truth?

 

[lightgigantic]

lg,

You dont seem to have any relevant point. If you think any religion has a factual basis then all you have to do is quote the facts. We both know very well that there are absolutely no facts to support religious claims and we know equally well you are incapable of quoting any.

once again,

No religious belief has any basis in fact

is a statement of belief (of the absolute negative variety)
and

if a religion is based on facts, I am not aware of any

is a statement that doesn't suffer from critical reflexivity.
The relevant point is that absolute negatives do not form the foundation of progressive discussion - aside from any particular issues of religion, god or facts, etc.

(no point responding to the rest of your post since you are simply reiterating the same absolute negative)

 

[wsionynw]

if a religion is based on facts, I am not aware of any

LG, if there is any religion based on facts, please state them.

 

[lightgigantic]

LG, if there is any religion based on facts, please state them.

interesting question my friend!

To answer that we have to look at how factual claims are determined to be actually - well - factual!

Suppose I was making a particular claim in physics about electrons.
How would you determine the claims to be factual?

 

[wsionynw]

interesting question my friend!

To answer that we have to look at how factual claims are determined to be actually - well - factual!

Suppose I was making a particular claim in physics about electrons.
How would you determine the claims to be factual?

With electrons, gravity, quantum theory, etc, you can make scientific predictions based on what you believe to be true.

With faith based claims regarding the wishes and powers of a God, predictions seem to be limited to simple nonesense or self fulfilling prophecies.

 

[lightgigantic]

With electrons, gravity, quantum theory, etc, you can make scientific predictions based on what you believe to be true.

I see
so the key is to have a correct theoretical foundation before one begins investigating the validity/invalidity of a claim

With faith based claims regarding the wishes and powers of a God, predictions seem to be limited to simple nonesense or self fulfilling prophecies.

it's unclear what you are talking about here
maybe you could provide an actual example

 

[SnakeLord]

To argue that because the worship of two scorpions is absurd, the worship of god is absurd, is not even a coherent argument

It's not clear how this is an answer to my question. Indeed it seems entirely irrelevant to it.

"Once again, what is it you think moral and social systems actually do to show that some claimed entity actually exists?"

you don't think philosophy is a good tool to determine validity?

You will have to be more specific. Give me an example that determines validity.

meh
more rhetoric

You're wrong. Try answering the question, it would make a welcome change.