1. Post #601
    Sickle's Avatar
    November 2009
    6,600 Posts
    I'm not playing with semantics. Religion is more something like a way of living and a meaningful view of the world rather than a discipline in which every statement must be proven true by empiric evidence or logic (tautology).
    Oh alrighty, so relgion is false.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 South Africa Show Events

  2. Post #602
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,608 Posts
    I'm not playing with semantics. Religion is more something like a way of living and a meaningful view of the world rather than a discipline in which every statement must be proven true by empiric evidence or logic (tautology).
    So, to conclude, you have no empirical evidence or proof to support the general assertions of mainstream religion (that is to say, Abrahamic religions). Furthermore, you have nothing concrete to suggest that religion is beyond criticism.

    Anything else?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  3. Post #603
    matsta's Avatar
    September 2009
    347 Posts
    Oh alrighty, so relgion is false.
    Everything that is the result of us giving the world some meaning is "false". But it isn't for us, because that meaning is present in us.

    And, yes, you will say that it doesn't matter and that they are false anyway, but you're also saying that they are "false" because you interpret the universe with certain criteria.

    What does being "false" even means for you?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Peru Show Events

  4. Post #604
    ECrownofFire's Avatar
    January 2011
    2,022 Posts
    So you're trying to justify people believing in something that is logically proven to be false? In that case there's nothing to debate here. If you're going to make that argument, just simply call it by it's actual definition: a delusion.
    Religion is not "logically proven to be false".
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac United States Show Events

  5. Post #605
    Sickle's Avatar
    November 2009
    6,600 Posts
    Everything that is the result of us giving the world some meaning is "false". But it isn't for us, because that meaning is present in us.

    And, yes, you will say that it doesn't matter and that they are false anyway, but you're also saying that they are "false" because you interpret the universe with certain criteria.

    What does being "false" even means for you?
    It does not posses circumstantial evidence to be proved true.

    Therefore it is false.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 South Africa Show Events

  6. Post #606
    Gold Member

    May 2005
    2,268 Posts
    Religion is not "logically proven to be false".
    I did not claim that

    I said it in response to matsta's claim that it doesn't matter if someone's religious beliefs are true or not ("not true" otherwise known as "false")
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  7. Post #607
    ECrownofFire's Avatar
    January 2011
    2,022 Posts
    It does not posses circumstantial evidence to be proved true.

    Therefore it is false.
    Assuming something is false because you haven't seen evidence for it is very bad logic. You can say that it's "more likely" to be false, but don't just assume it's false.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac United States Show Events

  8. Post #608
    Sickle's Avatar
    November 2009
    6,600 Posts
    Religion is not "logically proven to be false".
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
    Russell wrote that if he claimed that a teapot were orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it would be nonsensical for him to expect others not to doubt him on the grounds that they could not prove him wrong.
    It is not logically proven to be true, therefore for the time being it is false, and the burden of proof lies with theists.

    Edited:

    Assuming something is false because you haven't seen evidence for it is very bad logic. You can say that it's "more likely" to be false, but don't just assume it's false.
    It's actually very good logic, and what you're insinuating is the polar opposite.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 South Africa Show Events

  9. Post #609
    ECrownofFire's Avatar
    January 2011
    2,022 Posts
    No, not really.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac United States Show Events

  10. Post #610
    matsta's Avatar
    September 2009
    347 Posts
    oh, the wonders of analytic philosophy again.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Peru Show Events

  11. Post #611
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,608 Posts
    It seems like the Theists in this thread have done nothing but try to redefine religion or take logic out of what is supposed to be a logical and rational debate. It would be best for both sides to state their positions and present logic or evidence rather than try to incessantly shift the conversation around.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  12. Post #612
    Sickle's Avatar
    November 2009
    6,600 Posts
    No, not really.
    Incredible argument. So your counterargument to, 'X needs proof to be true, and a lack of proof constitutes falsity' is;

    'No'
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 South Africa Show Events

  13. Post #613
    ECrownofFire's Avatar
    January 2011
    2,022 Posts
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot It is not logically proven to be true, therefore for the time being it is false, and the burden of proof lies with theists.

    It's actually very good logic, and what you're insinuating is the polar opposite.
    Logically, the best you can do is a neutral position.

    Edited:

    Incredible argument. So your counterargument to, 'X needs proof to be true, and a lack of proof constitutes falsity' is;

    'No'
    Lacking one thing does not mean it's the opposite.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac United States Show Events

  14. Post #614
    Sickle's Avatar
    November 2009
    6,600 Posts
    Lacking one thing does not mean it's the opposite.
    So what you're saying is, a hypothesis is considered CORRECT until proven false?

    Therefore someone is GUILTY until proven innocent?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 South Africa Show Events

  15. Post #615
    ECrownofFire's Avatar
    January 2011
    2,022 Posts
    So what you're saying is, a hypothesis is considered CORRECT until proven false?

    Therefore someone is GUILTY until proven innocent?
    No, I'm saying that they're not proven either way. You completely missed my point.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac United States Show Events

  16. Post #616
    matsta's Avatar
    September 2009
    347 Posts
    It seems like the Theists in this thread have done nothing but try to redefine religion or take logic out of what is supposed to be a logical and rational debate. It would be best for both sides to state their positions and present logic or evidence rather than try to incessantly shift the conversation around.
    If you are talking about what I did, I'm atheist. But I do know that I'm choosing to believe that something doesn't exist. (unlike you, who hides behind logic)
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Peru Show Events

  17. Post #617
    Sickle's Avatar
    November 2009
    6,600 Posts
    No, I'm saying that they're not proven either way. You completely missed my point.
    Your point is wrong, I was deducing an alternative to keep the argument going.

    Edited:

    If you are talking about what I did, I'm atheist. But I do know that I'm choosing to believe that something doesn't exist. (unlike you, who hides behind logic)
    How does one 'hide behind logic'?

    Is that like 'hiding behind correctness'?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 South Africa Show Events

  18. Post #618
    matsta's Avatar
    September 2009
    347 Posts
    Your point is wrong, I was deducing an alternative to keep the argument going.

    Edited:



    How does one 'hide behind logic'?

    Is that like 'hiding behind correctness'?
    Logic isn't correctness. And one can't sustain any meaningful view of the world with logic, yet everyone has one (even atheists).

    Edited:

    Moreover, logic NEEDS things that previously have a meaning to work.

    Edited:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot It is not logically proven to be true, therefore for the time being it is false, and the burden of proof lies with theists.

    Edited:



    It's actually very good logic, and what you're insinuating is the polar opposite.
    No, it is not only logic. It's also derived from some kind of ontology not every philosopher agrees with.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Peru Show Events

  19. Post #619
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,608 Posts
    If you are talking about what I did, I'm atheist. But I do know that I'm choosing to believe that something doesn't exist. (unlike you, who hides behind logic)
    It is part of the rules of this section: Provide empirical evidence to back up your argument, or if such evidence does not exist, provide logic.

    It's not 'hiding behind logic', it's how a debate is meant to work.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  20. Post #620
    matsta's Avatar
    September 2009
    347 Posts
    It is part of the rules of this section: Provide empirical evidence to back up your argument, or if such evidence does not exist, provide logic.

    It's not 'hiding behind logic', it's how a debate is meant to work.
    "Are we too hard on Religion?"

    Is this a debate about religion being true or false? Read the title. Does it says something about religion being true? Read it again...

    Edited:

    Oh ,and actually, you're ignoring like half of what I said.

    Edited:

    And the debate is something like:

    m:Religion is not meant to be proved
    y: Religion is false.
    m: Religion is not a discipline of logic
    y: Religion is false.
    ...
    y: Religion is false.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Peru Show Events

  21. Post #621
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,608 Posts
    "Are we too hard on Religion?"

    Is this a debate about religion being true or false? Read the title. Does it says something about religion being true? Read it again...

    Edited:

    Oh ,and actually, you're ignoring like half of what I said.

    Edited:

    And the debate is something like:

    m:Religion is not meant to be proved
    y: Religion is false.
    m: Religion is not a discipline of logic
    y: Religion is false.
    ...
    y: Religion is false.
    Again, all that shows is you trying to redefine religion (as generally speaking as one can be about religion) as some abstract thing beyond human comprehension, when it was humans who established the church and wrote the Bible, Torah, and Quran.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  22. Post #622
    matsta's Avatar
    September 2009
    347 Posts
    Again, all that shows is you trying to redefine religion (as generally speaking as one can be about religion) as some abstract thing beyond human comprehension, when it was humans who established the church and wrote the Bible, Torah, and Quran.
    I'm defining religion as something that is human-made.

    Edited:

    As logic

    Edited:

    As atheism

    Edited:

    As philosophy and science
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Peru Show Events

  23. Post #623
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,608 Posts
    I'm defining religion as something that is human-made.
    A human-made entity (or rather entities) that more often than not make assertions about how the world came to be, as well as how it works. To say it is above logical scrutiny is ludicrous.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  24. Post #624
    matsta's Avatar
    September 2009
    347 Posts
    A human-made entity (or rather entities) that more often than not make assertions about how the world came to be, as well as how it works. To say it is above logical scrutiny is ludicrous.
    It isn't above nor beyond. Religious beliefs are to be analysed by what do they mean for the believer rather than a guide to comprehend the world.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Peru Show Events

  25. Post #625
    Gold Member
    Contag's Avatar
    July 2010
    11,828 Posts
    It is part of the rules of this section: Provide empirical evidence to back up your argument, or if such evidence does not exist, provide logic.

    It's not 'hiding behind logic', it's how a debate is meant to work.
    The issue with religion is that it is proposed to operate outside rationality and the natural world, and thus cannot be examined via empiricism or logic

    even if it were susceptible to logic, logic isn't some a priori universal constant
    it is, at the end of the day, all in the eye of the logician

    worst debate topic ever
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Australia Show Events

  26. Post #626
    Gold Member

    May 2005
    2,268 Posts
    And the debate is something like:

    m:Religion is not meant to be proved
    y: Religion is false.
    m: Religion is not a discipline of logic
    y: Religion is false.
    ...
    y: Religion is false.
    Sounds like "m" is just engaging in special pleading and "y" appears to be a strawman.

    And personally I'm not arguing that religion is false (I don't even understand what "religion is false" is supposed to mean since the term is so broad and can mean so many different things). So far all I've been arguing is that the existence of a god with particular qualities can be disproved.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  27. Post #627
    Gold Member
    Contag's Avatar
    July 2010
    11,828 Posts
    So far all I've been arguing is that the existence of a god with particular qualities can be disproved.
    How? It's entirely unfalsifiable
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Australia Show Events

  28. Post #628
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,608 Posts
    It isn't above nor beyond. Religious beliefs are to be analysed by what do they mean for the believer rather than a guide to comprehend the world.
    Says who? You? Who's set this criteria of what religion can be analyzed by?

    Edited:

    How? It's entirely unfalsifiable
    It's only unfalsifiable because it has been written to be so. One can write up any amount of fantastic tales that are unfalsifiable, but it deserves no credence as philosophy.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events

  29. Post #629
    matsta's Avatar
    September 2009
    347 Posts
    The issue with religion is that it is proposed to operate outside rationality and the natural world, and thus cannot be examined via empiricism or logic

    even if it were susceptible to logic, logic isn't some a priori universal constant
    it is, at the end of the day, all in the eye of the logician

    worst debate topic ever
    It's actually a good debate IF YOU READ THE GODDAMN TITLE.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Peru Show Events

  30. Post #630
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,608 Posts
    The debate's title itself lends to poor debate and the discussion will always trend to the question of god(s) existence. As far as the title and the OP goes, the debate is over. Until such time as a new worthwhile debate thread on this subject or relevant subjects is made, this thread is closed.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events