The Problem with Religious Moderates

[HuskersNow]

Don't get so hung up on what you can prove or disprove. In your eyeblink of a life there will be myriad things you can neither prove nor disprove. You can base your life on the evidence provided to you at the time, but expecting to have proof of anything is illogical. You are welcome not to believe in god(s). There is ample evidence to show that god(s) do not exist. But there is also evidence to show god(s) do exist, and you do yourself and those you denigrate a disservice when you dismiss ideas you can neither prove nor disprove as "insane." In all things, moderation.

I just simply don't believe in unfalsifiable ideas. I believe that when I press down the "e" key that an "e" will appear on my screen. I can't objectively prove that it will happen, but the probability that it will is very close to one. There is no evidence that a God exists. If you give me evidence that shows that God is almost certainly real, then I will believe in him.

 

You're misunderstanding the point jliehr is making. He's not saying that because man created religion that man = bad, he's saying that because man created religion, the harm that is in religion came from man. You can remove religion from the equation, but the harm that man put into religion originated from man, therefore the harm still exists.

 

Man put religion into the equation when he was engulfed in ignorance. We don't all have to act like caveman all the time. The harm originated because of ignorance which education can do away with.

 

 

My claim in this thread has always been if people are educated so as to take off the yolk of religion, then the amount of harm in the world would be lessened.

 

The very definition of an unfalsifiable statement. It's interesting that you dismiss the unfalsifiable claims of others as "insane ideas" yet hold on to your own. If unfalsifiable ideas are harmful, why do you indulge in them?

If you can quantify the amount of harm in a closed system, then you can do controlled experiments where religion is present in one area and is not present in another and see what happens to the amount of harm in each.

 

 

 

But religion doesn't just let people sleep at night, does it? It effects everything you do from how you greet people to how you decide to vote.

So does defining yourself by political party, or by culture, or region, or any one of the myriad other ways you can define yourself. All have their benefits and drawbacks, all have the ability to be used for good and misused for evil.

 

Religions rely on the ignorance of those that they proselytize to to swell their numbers. By educating people, you remove a reason that people accept the "truths" of religion. My claim still stands in this thread, that the net effects of religion are harmful.

[HuskersNow]

 

Yes. Words have finite meanings, not infinite. You choose to not accept a commonly held definition, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean that the meaning is untrue.

 

I can call a truck a duck, and refuse to believe that your definition holds meaning, but that doesn't make me right.

You can't prove to me that any given word has such and such meaning. In order to have meaningful conversations, we have to agree on the definition of any term that we happen to be using. It's ok if someone disagrees with our definition, but by agreeing on a definition we make conversation constructive instead of confusing.

 

Words have held different meanings over times. That doesn't mean that the definition that I'm using is wrong, it's just different than other definitions.

 

You say it is a commonly held definition, but I notice that you provide no evidence for this fact. If it's so common, then I should be able to find any atheist off the street and most would agree with you that atheism is a religion. But somehow I don't think that this is the case.

[knapplc]

I just simply don't believe in unfalsifiable ideas. I believe that when I press down the "e" key that an "e" will appear on my screen. I can't objectively prove that it will happen, but the probability that it will is very close to one. There is no evidence that a God exists. If you give me evidence that shows that God is almost certainly real, then I will believe in him.

Of course you do. You believe, despite any evidence to support this belief or any possibility that an experiment could be conducted that would show it is true, that through education we can reduce the amount of harm in the world. Not only is this unfalsifiable, it's no more nor no less unfalsifiable than the "ignorant" beliefs you deride in Theists. You have simply chosen which unfalsifiable belief to believe in, that's all.

 

Man put religion into the equation when he was engulfed in ignorance. We don't all have to act like caveman all the time. The harm originated because of ignorance which education can do away with.

Believing in the unprovable makes you a caveman? I have bad news for you, then...

 

If you can quantify the amount of harm in a closed system, then you can do controlled experiments where religion is present in one area and is not present in another and see what happens to the amount of harm in each.

Are we talking about belief systems or reality now? Because such an experiment is not based in reality.

 

My claim still stands in this thread, that the net effects of religion are harmful.

You have proven nothing more than that you believe in different things than different people. Your beliefs are founded in truth and the unfalsifiable, no more than and no less than the beliefs of those you call "ignorant."

[knapplc]

You can't prove to me that any given word has such and such meaning. In order to have meaningful conversations, we have to agree on the definition of any term that we happen to be using. It's ok if someone disagrees with our definition, but by agreeing on a definition we make conversation constructive instead of confusing.

Completely agree, which is why I provided a link to an outside, dispassionate authority which provides a definition of this word. If you choose not to believe this authority, you must show how they are incorrect. And no, stating "I disagree with their definition" isn't an appropriate response.

 

 

You say it is a commonly held definition, but I notice that you provide no evidence for this fact. If it's so common, then I should be able to find any atheist off the street and most would agree with you that atheism is a religion. But somehow I don't think that this is the case.

 

No evidence? What evidence do you want? What's wrong with the link I provided?

 

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices

 

 

Or are you making the assertion that the atheist off the street is more an authority on the definition of words than lexicographers?

[HuskersNow]

Of course you do. You believe, despite any evidence to support this belief or any possibility that an experiment could be conducted that would show it is true, that through education we can reduce the amount of harm in the world. Not only is this unfalsifiable, it's no more nor no less unfalsifiable than the "ignorant" beliefs you deride in Theists. You have simply chosen which unfalsifiable belief to believe in, that's all.

It is falsifiable as I showed earlier.

 

Man put religion into the equation when he was engulfed in ignorance. We don't all have to act like caveman all the time. The harm originated because of ignorance which education can do away with.

Believing in the unprovable makes you a caveman? I have bad news for you, then...

Reread my post. WHEN HE WAS ENGULFED IN IGNORANCE. In other words, when he was a caveman.

 

If you can quantify the amount of harm in a closed system, then you can do controlled experiments where religion is present in one area and is not present in another and see what happens to the amount of harm in each.

Are we talking about belief systems or reality now? Because such an experiment is not based in reality.

This is not impossible to accomplish. Experiments of this kind can exist.

 

My claim still stands in this thread, that the net effects of religion are harmful.

You have proven nothing more than that you believe in different things than different people. Your beliefs are founded in truth and the unfalsifiable, no more than and no less than the beliefs of those you call "ignorant."

My ideas about religion are not unfalsifiable.

[HuskersNow]

You can't prove to me that any given word has such and such meaning. In order to have meaningful conversations, we have to agree on the definition of any term that we happen to be using. It's ok if someone disagrees with our definition, but by agreeing on a definition we make conversation constructive instead of confusing.

Completely agree, which is why I provided a link to an outside, dispassionate authority which provides a definition of this word. If you choose not to believe this authority, you must show how they are incorrect. And no, stating "I disagree with their definition" isn't an appropriate response.

No, the "authority" has to provide evidence that shows his positive claim about the definition of a word is the only true definition. The burden of proof lies with those that make positive claims.

 

You say it is a commonly held definition, but I notice that you provide no evidence for this fact. If it's so common, then I should be able to find any atheist off the street and most would agree with you that atheism is a religion. But somehow I don't think that this is the case.

 

No evidence? What evidence do you want? What's wrong with the link I provided?

That link proves nothing.

 

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices

 

 

Or are you making the assertion that the atheist off the street is more an authority on the definition of words than lexicographers?

Atheism does not make any positive claims regarding, "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

 

You can't bunch together all atheists and say this is what they believe except to say that they don't believe in deities.

[knapplc]

Of course you do. You believe, despite any evidence to support this belief or any possibility that an experiment could be conducted that would show it is true, that through education we can reduce the amount of harm in the world. Not only is this unfalsifiable, it's no more nor no less unfalsifiable than the "ignorant" beliefs you deride in Theists. You have simply chosen which unfalsifiable belief to believe in, that's all.

It is unfalsifiable as I showed earlier.

OK, so we agree - you believe in the unfalsifiable, just different unfalsifiable things than others. I'm glad we cleared that up.

 

Believing in the unprovable makes you a caveman? I have bad news for you, then...

Reread my post. WHEN HE WAS ENGULFED IN IGNORANCE. In other words, when he was a caveman.

So, to follow the logic you've put forth in this thread: Unprovable beliefs originate through lack of education, and now that we are no longer cavemen, we should not believe in the unprovable. And yet, you just agreed that you still believe in the unfalsifiable. It's a quandary!

 

Are we talking about belief systems or reality now? Because such an experiment is not based in reality.

This is not impossible to accomplish.

This would be the part where you would show us how.

 

You have proven nothing more than that you believe in different things than different people. Your beliefs are founded in truth and the unfalsifiable, no more than and no less than the beliefs of those you call "ignorant."

My ideas about religion are not unfalsifiable.

Perhaps not, but your ideas about how to go about showing that religion causes more harm than good are, which is what I am getting at.

[knapplc]

You can't prove to me that any given word has such and such meaning. In order to have meaningful conversations, we have to agree on the definition of any term that we happen to be using. It's ok if someone disagrees with our definition, but by agreeing on a definition we make conversation constructive instead of confusing.

Completely agree, which is why I provided a link to an outside, dispassionate authority which provides a definition of this word. If you choose not to believe this authority, you must show how they are incorrect. And no, stating "I disagree with their definition" isn't an appropriate response.

No, the "authority" has to provide evidence that shows his positive claim about the definition of a word is the only true definition. The burden of proof lies with those that make positive claims.

 

You say it is a commonly held definition, but I notice that you provide no evidence for this fact. If it's so common, then I should be able to find any atheist off the street and most would agree with you that atheism is a religion. But somehow I don't think that this is the case.

 

No evidence? What evidence do you want? What's wrong with the link I provided?

That link proves nothing.

 

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices

 

 

Or are you making the assertion that the atheist off the street is more an authority on the definition of words than lexicographers?

Atheism does not make any positive claims regarding, "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

 

You can't bunch together all atheists and say this is what they believe except to say that they don't believe in deities.

 

 

So now the dictionary is not the authority in lexicography? How do you propose that we define words from now on? What should we use if dictionaries are not the authority?

[HuskersNow]

 

OK, so we agree - you believe in the unfalsifiable, just different unfalsifiable things than others. I'm glad we cleared that up.

You know what I meant but you chose to ignore it.

 

So, to follow the logic you've put forth in this thread: Unprovable beliefs originate through lack of education, and now that we are no longer cavemen, we should not believe in the unprovable. And yet, you just agreed that you still believe in the unfalsifiable. It's a quandary!

Very funny.

 

This would be the part where you would show us how.

If you can quantify the amount of harm being done then you could follow two groups of people over a long period of time with the difference between them being their religion or lack thereof. At the end of the experiment you would then find out which group caused the most harm.

 

Perhaps not, but your ideas about how to go about showing that religion causes more harm than good are, which is what I am getting at.

They are not, which is what I'm getting at.

[HuskersNow]

 

 

So now the dictionary is not the authority in lexicography? How do you propose that we define words from now on? What should we use if dictionaries are not the authority?

 

 

You misinterpreted what the dictionary said.

[knapplc]

This would be the part where you would show us how.

If you can quantify the amount of harm being done then you could follow two groups of people over a long period of time with the difference between them being their religion or lack thereof. At the end of the experiment you would then find out which group caused the most harm.

 

Since all of your other arguments are now boiling down to basically nothing, let's just focus on this one, because it seems to be a lynch-pin in your stance. The reason this is unquantifiable, and that your beliefs are simply based on different unquantifiable things than those of Theists, is that you continue to use the word "if" to describe the process.

 

Quantifiable by its very definition (presuming you believe the Dictionary, which I do), means that you can measure the amount of a thing - in this case, "harm" - and you've chosen to do that by conducting this experiment. However, for your experiment to be quantifiable, you would have to be able to show how it could be done. You cannot simply say, "If it can be done," you have to show how. If you can't... it's unquantifiable.

 

What I've asked you, is how you would do that. You respond with an "if" statement. I'm not interested in conjecture, I'm interested in the mechanics by which you would conduct this experiment. What we'll do is have you explain how this experiment would be conducted, and when your explanation goes beyond the possible, then we'll see how it's unquantifiable. That's the thrust of this line.

 

So please, do be kind enough to explain, in detail, how you would go about conducting said experiment.

[HuskerNMO]

I assume that since there is absolutely no evidence for God that he doesn't exist. The idea of God is an unfalsifiable one, and I'm not going to waste my life believing in all sorts of insane ideas just because people threaten me with hell if I don't. The idea of God is a theory, but not a scientific one. A scientific idea requires the possibility that its claims can be tested. The theory of God fails miserably on that count. You're right when you say God can't be proven or disproven, that is an unfalsifiable idea.

 

The "word of handed down books from dead scientists or philosophers" taught me how to think critically and remove the blinders that Christianity had placed over me. They taught me to examine my beliefs and reason out why I actually believe them. In my case, they didn't tell me to accept their beliefs based on faith. I would have been insulted and stopped reading if they had done so. They gave reasons for their positions and I either accepted or rejected them. I never once accepted their ideas blindly on faith.

 

Christianity requires that leap of faith that no reasonable person would ever take. The books and personal accounts of Christianity require you to take that leap of faith. "Believe my claims that I have provided absolutely no evidence for and you will be saved!" is not something that I would fall for. Christianity is an ignorant religion because it replaces reason with blind faith. Go into the lunatic asylum and when you return tell me if faith proves anything.

 

Let me re-write your paragraph for you.

 

I assume that since there is absolutely no evidence against God that he exists. The idea of God is an un-falsifiable one, and I'm not going to waste my life believing in all sorts of insane ideas just because people claim that science is king. The idea of science is a theory; a scientific idea requires the assumption that it is true. There is only anecdotal evidence supporting many of those theories based on observations or "work" done by other scientists whose agenda often is driven by attempting to falsify religion. You're right when you say God can't be proven or disproven, that is an un-falsifiable idea.

 

What makes your paragraph more right than mine other than your belief system?

 

The "word of handed down books from dead scientists or philosophers" taught me how to think critically and remove the blinders that Christianity had placed over me. They taught me to examine my beliefs and reason out why I actually believe them. In my case, they didn't tell me to accept their beliefs based on faith. I would have been insulted and stopped reading if they had done so. They gave reasons for their positions and I either accepted or rejected them. I never once accepted their ideas blindly on faith.

 

Christianity requires that leap of faith that no reasonable person would ever take. The books and personal accounts of Christianity require you to take that leap of faith. "Believe my claims that I have provided absolutely no evidence for and you will be saved!" is not something that I would fall for. Christianity is an ignorant religion because it replaces reason with blind faith. Go into the lunatic asylum and when you return tell me if faith proves anything.

 

Have you personally verified those scientific claims? No, you're relying on faith that the observations and testimony of others is factual. Scientific studies and theories are disproven all of the time; many of the things that people of previous generations held true have been disproven by our generations. What of this generation that has been accepted as truth will be disproven by future generations? Science is only a collection of flawed human observation, logic and reasoning. Does that mean I reject all scientific theory? No, it's pretty obvious that they have several general ideas. But carbon dating and other scientific methods rely completely on faith that the scientists are right. How can you claim truth in dating an object as thousands of years old by a technique that is only 60-65 years old?

 

Why are people who observed and documented the life of Christ less reliable than philosophers other than the fact you don't agree with them? What exactly has science proven beyond theories? While it's neat that we can study things like gravity, how has it improved human existence? Human's still die and scientists still can't prove what happens after people die. Sure, you may live a few years longer, and you may have a little more knowledge, but people want to know what happens to them when they die. Science and religion are on equal footing here, as neither can prove what happens to our existence when we die. Anything that claims to is just a theory that cannot be proven or disproven in this world.

 

The first sentence is a logical fallacy. I'll provide another one for entertainment value: the polio vaccine was created by man, the polio vaccine is inherently good, thus man is inherently good. See how that works? Or using an idea instead: man created the concept of quality control, quality control is good, thus man is good.

 

My world is not magic, you're the one who believes in fantastical things about God. My claim in this thread has always been if people are educated so as to take off the yolk of religion, then the amount of harm in the world would be lessened. I am no historian, but man probably invented religion to explain natural phenomena that they didn't understand like earthquakes.

 

You are making the assumption that bad and good are mutually exclusive. I find no fault with your statement; men can be both good and bad. But where does the concept of good and bad come from? It’s from our beliefs systems, or religion, or whatever label you prefer.

 

Regarding the bold, do you believe that God had a beginning? If not, how could he exist by your own logic?

 

Regarding the big bang theory, modern physics breaks down when you get to the planck density. I personally think that the universe arose because of vacuum fluctuations. There is no reason to think that a god created the universe.

Since I'm sure you want to know more about how some physicists tackle this problem, I'm going to give you this link.

 

Yes, I believe that God had to have had a beginning to exist, but that doesn't mean I have to understand the beginning to believe in him.

 

Atheism is not a religion, it is a lack of belief in something. Theism makes the positive claim, atheism the negative one. My belief system is based on evidence, yours is based on blind faith without evidence, a big difference. All theistic religions make a positive claim regarding God's existence.

 

If Atheism is making a claim that God does not exist, and basing it on evidence, that what is it other than a belief in that evidence? We convict people in courts based on evidence and testimony of a handful of people, and you are okay with that. Yet you reject the testimony of the people who witnessed Christ's life as blind faith. The same applies to all other religion, they are based on individual’s testimonies and evidence, and you just choose not to believe them. Yet you claim your evidence is the correct evidence, and everyone else is wrong. Explain to me again how that makes you any different than any other religious group?

 

But religion doesn't just let people sleep at night, does it? It effects everything you do from how you greet people to how you decide to vote.

 

So I see that you have read Pascal's wager. If you're wrong about not believing in the ancient Egyptian gods, and your heart is weighted down with evil deeds, then you will be condemned to oblivion for all eternity, but if you're right and your heart is not weighted down then you will join Osiris in the afterlife.

 

If you don't believe in some religion that I just made up, then you will suffer in another place that I just made up for all of eternity and it will really suck. But if you do believe in this made up religion then you will go to a heaven that is pretty neat.

 

The problem with his wager is that the probability of Christianity being right is the same as the above examples, so should I believe in them too? I assign the same probability to all of them because there is no evidence to support the ideas at all. Just because many people believe in Christianity does not make the ideas true.

 

And atheism is in the same boat; your "lack of belief" has never affected how you greet people or vote?

 

It's up to you what you believe, if you find comfort in ignoring the established systems than that's what you do. Pascal's theory does apply to all religion, and many people practice multiple belief systems to "cover their bases". Life is a game, and you pick something to follow, or pretend that you have a lack of belief in anything, that's your right. But the fact is you have to make a choice, you chose to reject everything, and that is your belief, which is my definition of religion (a system of beliefs).

 

 

[HuskersNow]

 

Since all of Kanapplc's other arguments are now boiling down to basically nothing, let's just focus on this one, because it seems to be a lynch-pin in your stance. The reason this is unquantifiable, and that your beliefs are simply based on different unquantifiable things than those of Theists, is that you continue to use the word "if" to describe the process.

Fixed it for you.

 

Quantifiable by its very definition (presuming you believe the Dictionary, which I do), means that you can measure the amount of a thing - in this case, "harm" - and you've chosen to do that by conducting this experiment. However, for your experiment to be quantifiable, you would have to be able to show how it could be done. You cannot simply say, "If it can be done," you have to show how. If you can't... it's unquantifiable.

 

What I've asked you, is how you would do that. You respond with an "if" statement. I'm not interested in conjecture, I'm interested in the mechanics by which you would conduct this experiment. What we'll do is have you explain how this experiment would be conducted, and when your explanation goes beyond the possible, then we'll see how it's unquantifiable. That's the thrust of this line.

 

So please, do be kind enough to explain, in detail, how you would go about conducting said experiment.

It depends on how you define harm. If I define it by saying it is the murder rate then the experiment can go on. How do you define harm?

[HuskerNMO]

Since all of Kanapplc's other arguments are now boiling down to basically nothing, let's just focus on this one, because it seems to be a lynch-pin in your stance. The reason this is unquantifiable, and that your beliefs are simply based on different unquantifiable things than those of Theists, is that you continue to use the word "if" to describe the process.

Fixed it for you.

 

Quantifiable by its very definition (presuming you believe the Dictionary, which I do), means that you can measure the amount of a thing - in this case, "harm" - and you've chosen to do that by conducting this experiment. However, for your experiment to be quantifiable, you would have to be able to show how it could be done. You cannot simply say, "If it can be done," you have to show how. If you can't... it's unquantifiable.

 

What I've asked you, is how you would do that. You respond with an "if" statement. I'm not interested in conjecture, I'm interested in the mechanics by which you would conduct this experiment. What we'll do is have you explain how this experiment would be conducted, and when your explanation goes beyond the possible, then we'll see how it's unquantifiable. That's the thrust of this line.

 

So please, do be kind enough to explain, in detail, how you would go about conducting said experiment.

It depends on how you define harm. If I define it by saying it is the murder rate then the experiment can go on. How do you define harm?

 

Harm is defined as physical or mental damage. Here's my response to your "theory". According to scientific theory, humans evolved from animals right? So our closest references to humans are animals, and animals do not have religion like humans; yet animals still harm one another physically. Therefore based on "scientific observations", your theory is bunk unless you'd like to state your case that animals are also religous like humans, or if you want to make up the definition of the word harm.

[knapplc]

Quantifiable by its very definition (presuming you believe the Dictionary, which I do), means that you can measure the amount of a thing - in this case, "harm" - and you've chosen to do that by conducting this experiment. However, for your experiment to be quantifiable, you would have to be able to show how it could be done. You cannot simply say, "If it can be done," you have to show how. If you can't... it's unquantifiable.

 

What I've asked you, is how you would do that. You respond with an "if" statement. I'm not interested in conjecture, I'm interested in the mechanics by which you would conduct this experiment. What we'll do is have you explain how this experiment would be conducted, and when your explanation goes beyond the possible, then we'll see how it's unquantifiable. That's the thrust of this line.

 

So please, do be kind enough to explain, in detail, how you would go about conducting said experiment.

It depends on how you define harm. If I define it by saying it is the murder rate then the experiment can go on. How do you define harm?

 

Point of clarification - are you asserting that the ONLY harm you're accusing religion of is murder?