Is Religion a Scam?

[TruthSeeker60]

I was going to take a break, but I wanted to address this:

They will talk about the Big Bang Theory, the Theory of Evolution, and so on. They are all taught as science FACT, but they are all theories. They are not proven; they are speculations.

Evolution is a theory in the same sense that gravity is a theory.

A scientific theory is not a guess, but rather is supported by evidence:

A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (calledscientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

[John21652]

I was going to take a break, but I wanted to address this:

Evolution is a theory in the same sense that gravity is a theory.

A scientific theory is not a guess, but rather is supported by evidence:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Newton tested gravity with an apple.

Many years later I tested gravity by falling off a haystack.

The theory seems to work.

 

[tonyrey]

I have to explain why the moral teachings that the gospels attribute to Jesus are accepted by many. That’s extremely misguided. Having the moral teaching that the gospels attribute to Jesus in no way removes the possibility of the apostles simply being wrong.

You do have to explain why the moral teachings that the gospels attribute to Jesus are accepted by many because people are not so gullible as you imply. It’s the easiest thing in the world to assert that it’s possible the apostles may have been wrong but to explain why they may have been wrong is far more to the point. The fact that you’re not a Christian demonstrates that **you believe **they were wrong but you are not prepared to justify your belief. One can only assume that you are unable to do so…

First, I would like to emphasize the word usually because we don’t determine whether a belief is true based on whether or not it has adverse effects.

Then how do you explain the fact that false beliefs like errors of judgment cause accidents?

Second, I don’t want to turn this into a thread about the effects of Christianity, so I’ll just mention one general negative effect: fear of going to hell. Studies show that Catholics tend to fear death the most.

That is nonsense because Catholics strongly believe in God’s infinite mercy, in the intercession of the saints, in the power of prayer, in the value of confession, in the Bread of Life and in the power of Christ’s love to liberate them from evil.

Going from, “the life and death of the founder of my religion is the basis of great moral teachings that are accepted by most people,” to, “therefore, the supernatural claims about my religion are probably true,” is a non-sequitor.

It is not a non-sequitur because the moral teaching of Christ does not make sense if it is disassociated from His teaching that we have a heavenly Father. The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity cease to have a rational basis if we are biological machines which exist for no reason or purpose.

You did not understand my point. Re-read what I wrote. My point is that if you consider popularity of a religion to be a criterion that makes the claims of a religion more likely to be true, then if you lived thousands of years ago, you would have concluded, at that time, that the popularity of Hinduism would have made its claims more likely to be true.

In other words, if the popularity of Christianity today makes you more justifies in being a Christian today, then if you lived thousands of years ago when Hinduism was the most popular religion, one’s Hinduism would be more justified by popularity.

You keep ignoring my point that popularity is not the main criterion of truth but an additional reason for accepting it as true. You are also oversimplifying the matter. Every religion has doctrines which are true. So in that sense Hinduism may well have been the religion with the greatest number of true doctrines at that time. So its popularity would have been justified.

One fact you have left out of account is that time is one of the best tests of truth. False beliefs have a habit of falling by the wayside because they do not cohere with true beliefs.

Just because I do not think that the fact that something would satisfy a need if true, or that something may seem true from an unscrupulous analysis (“has a ‘ring’ of truth”) makes it any more true, does not mean that I would have to reject pragmatism or our ability to form reasonable judgments of what’s true or false from evidence

It means you reject the pragmatic principle of fertility: that true beliefs produce successful. A judgment based on an accumulation of evidence is the antithesis of an “unscrupulous analysis”.

The argument you were making, that I was rejecting, was that because something fills a spiritual need (whatever that is), it is more likely to be true.

It seems that according to you any religion is false whether it corresponds to a person’s needs or not! Not only unpragmatic but also dogmatic!

Other religions are popular because all religions teach the same fundamental truths!
You would have to really water down religions to hold that.

Not at all. All religions teach that we do not exist by chance, that life is immensely valuable, that we are all responsible for what we do and that we should respect the lives of others.

The point that I was refuting was that a religion being popular does not make it any more likely to be true. Even if you were to use this “all religions teach the same fundamental truths” to sidestep the objection that most people belong to non-Christian religions, you would only be making an argument for those fundamental teachings, not Christianity. Those fundamental teachings you mentioned could be held by anyone regardless of whether or not they were religious and/or believe in a god.

Those fundamental teachings **could **be held by anyone but **would **they? You are assuming that anyone could discover humanity’s heritage of moral wisdom without the slightest difficulty.

And that’s only if the fact that a claim is popular means that it’s more likely to be true.

Once again I need to remind you that popularity is not the main criterion of truth but an additional reason for accepting a belief as true.

My point that people have sacrificed their lives due to false beliefs, and that the apostles may have been wrong, stands regardless.

All religions teach the same fundamental truths but they do not all teach all the fundamental truths! It does not follow that all martyrs have sacrificed their lives due to false beliefs simply because some have done so.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Part 1/2

You do have to explain why the moral teachings that the gospels attribute to Jesus are accepted by many because people are not so gullible as you imply.

You’ve got the burden of proof backwards. The ~2 billion people who believe something have the burden of proof, not those who lack belief and say that they and those who founded their religion might be wrong. Being popular does not reverse the burden of proof.

If those two billion people, after serious critical thinking, become convinced in these claims, it should be easy to convince me.

It’s the easiest thing in the world to assert that it’s possible the apostles may have been wrong but to explain why they may have been wrong is far more to the point.

You don’t understand the difference in the burden of proof between asserting that something happened, and that something may have happened.

The fact that you’re not a Christian demonstrates that **you believe **they were wrong but you are not prepared to justify your belief.

I believe that the apostles were wrong no more than you believe that the apostles of Apollonius of Tyana were wrong. I have no more burden of proof for my lack of belief that the apostles of Jesus were right than you have the BOP for lack of belief that the apostles of Apollonius of Tyana was right.

TruthSeeker60;7643688:

First, I would like to emphasize the word usually because we don’t determine whether a belief is true based on whether or not it has adverse effects.

Then how do you explain the fact that false beliefs like errors of judgment cause accidents?

You obviously misunderstood what I said because you seem to think that the fact that error of judgment tend to cause accidents somehow contradicts or refutes what I said.

To rephrase so that you might be able to understand, we determine whether or not something is true based on the evidence, not based on whether believing in them will have good effects.

I do think that holding false beliefs to be true will generally cause problems. However, we use evidence to determine whether a belief is true.

TruthSeeker60;7643688:

Second, I don’t want to turn this into a thread about the effects of Christianity, so I’ll just mention one general negative effect: fear of going to hell. Studies show that Catholics tend to fear death the most.

That is nonsense because Catholics strongly believe in God’s infinite mercy, in the intercession of the saints, in the power of prayer, in the value of confession, in the Bread of Life and in the power of Christ’s love to liberate them from evil.

That’s what studies have shown!

If you’re interested in other negative effects of religion, that have been demonstrated by the research of a Catholic University:

TruthSeeker60:

There is actually a study that finds that many immoral things are correlated with religiosity. The Journal of Religion and Society, as reported by The Times, said, “In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.”

timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece
moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

If you think the study was bias, consider that it was conducted by Creighton, a Catholic university. If anything, Creighton would have preferred the findings to be the opposite.

It is not a non-sequitur because the moral teaching of Christ does not make sense if it is disassociated from His teaching that we have a heavenly Father.

It’s still a non-sequitor.

The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity cease to have a rational basis if we are biological machines which exist for no reason or purpose.

This does not change the truth value of a god claim.

TruthSeeker60;7637817:

In other words, if the popularity of Christianity today makes you more

justifies in being a Christian today, then if you lived thousands of years ago when Hinduism was the most popular religion, one’s Hinduism would be more justified by popularity.

You keep ignoring my point that popularity is not the main criterion of truth but an additional reason for accepting it as true.

Actually, if you would have noticed that I used the word MORE, you may have seen that I did understand that you considered it an additional reason. Regardless, my point stands whether you consider it a main, or additional, reason.

Every religion has doctrines which are true. So in that sense Hinduism may well have been the religion with the greatest number of true doctrines at that time. So its popularity would have been justified.

My point is that, with your thinking, popularity would have given people additional reason to be Hindu at that time.

False beliefs have a habit of falling by the wayside because they do not cohere with true beliefs.

That usually happens, but not always. I shouldn’t assume that just because someone believes something, or that a certain percentage of the population believes something, and the belief has been around for a while, that it’s true.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Part 2/2

QUOTE=TruthSeeker60;7643688]Just because I do not think that the fact that something would satisfy a need if true, or that something may seem true from an unscrupulous analysis (“has a ‘ring’ of truth”) makes it any more true, does not mean that I would have to reject pragmatism or our ability to form reasonable judgments of what’s true or false from evidence.

A judgment based on an accumulation of evidence is the antithesis of an “unscrupulous analysis”.

YES!!! That’s exactly why I reject what I interpret to be you position in post 349 that because something is popular, it has the surface appearance of being true, thus it is an additional reason to belileve.

Perhaps I misinterpreted what you meant by “ring” of truth.

TruthSeeker60;7643688:

The argument you were making, that I was rejecting, was that because something fills a spiritual need (whatever that is), it is more likely to be true.

It seems that according to you any religion is false whether it corresponds to a person’s needs or not! Not only unpragmatic but also dogmatic!

My position is that unless there is sufficient evidence presented to justify belief that a religion is true, one aught not believe that that religion is true, even if it would satisfy some need, perhaps due to a placebo effect. That’s hardly dogmatic.

Now, I’ve never seen any religion provide sufficient evidence to justify its supernatural claims.

TruthSeeker60;7643688:

The point that I was refuting was that a religion being popular does not make it any more likely to be true. Even if you were to use this “all religions teach the same fundamental truths” to sidestep the objection that most people belong to non-Christian religions, you would only be making an argument for those fundamental teachings, not Christianity. Those fundamental teachings you mentioned could be held by anyone regardless of whether or not they were religious and/or believe in a god. And that’s only if the fact that a claim is popular means that it’s more likely to be true.

Those fundamental teachings **could **be held by anyone but **would **they? You are assuming that anyone could discover humanity’s heritage of moral wisdom without the slightest difficulty.

My point is that those things aren’t exclusive to religions.

I never gave any indication whether those people who were religious or who weren’t would have an easier or more difficult time coming to conclusions on these things.

TruthSeeker60;7643688:

My point that people have sacrificed their lives due to false beliefs, and that the apostles may have been wrong, stands regardless.

All religions teach the same fundamental truths but they do not all teach all the fundamental truths! It does not follow that all martyrs have sacrificed their lives due to false beliefs simply because some have done so.

My point in the very beginning of entering this thread was that the apostles could have died for a mistaken belief. You seem to agree with me on a point I was trying to make earlier, that was debated by Ignatius in post 318, that it’s possible for someone to die for a false belief. It doesn’t follow from that that the apostles did die for false beliefs, but it keeps the door open for it being possible.

 

[tonyrey]

You’ve got the burden of proof backwards. The ~2 billion people who believe something have the burden of proof, not those who lack belief and say that they and those who founded their religion might be wrong. Being popular does not reverse the burden of proof.

Rejection of an interpretation of reality implies that a person has an alternative interpretation that has to be justified. It is impossible to be uncommitted.

If those two billion people, after serious critical thinking, become convinced in these claims, it should be easy to convince me.

You are underestimating the intelligence of the average person.

You don’t understand the difference in the burden of proof between asserting that something happened, and that something may have happened.

You don’t understand the difference in the burden of proof between asserting something probably happened and something **may **have happened.

I believe that the apostles were wrong no more than you believe that the apostles of Apollonius of Tyana were wrong. I have no more burden of proof for my lack of belief that the apostles of Jesus were right than you have the BOP for lack of belief that the apostles of Apollonius of Tyana was right.

Apollonius did not found a world religion!

You obviously misunderstood what I said because you seem to think that the fact that error of judgment tend to cause accidents somehow contradicts or refutes what I said.
To rephrase so that you might be able to understand, we determine whether or not something is true based on the evidence, not based on whether believing in them will have good effects.
I do think that holding false beliefs to be true will generally cause problems. However, we use evidence to determine whether a belief is true.

In daily life, philosophy and science people experiment to establish the truth and also test the evidence.

If you’re interested in other negative effects of religion, that have been demonstrated by the research of a Catholic University:

The negative effects are not caused by the positive teaching of Jesus but by the failure of His followers to live up to them. Such statistics overlook the fact of free will.

It’s still a non-sequitor.

You have not explained why it is a non-sequitur!

This does not change the truth value of a god claim**.**

You have simply ignored my statements:

“It is not a non-sequitur because the moral teaching of Christ does not make sense if it is disassociated from His teaching that we have a heavenly Father. The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity cease to have a rational basis if we are biological machines which exist for no reason or purpose.”

Do you deny the validity of those principles?

Actually, if you would have noticed that I used the word MORE, you may have seen that I did understand that you considered it an additional reason. Regardless, my point stands whether you consider it a main, or additional, reason.

So, other things being equal, you believe the beliefs of a small number of people are more significant and likely to be true than those of several billion?

My point is that, with your thinking, popularity would have given people additional reason to be Hindu at that time.

Of course! And they would have been justified…

That usually happens, but not always. I shouldn’t assume that just because someone believes something, or that a certain percentage of the population believes something, and the belief has been around for a while, that it’s true.

Once again you ignore probability! You think you can establish your case by dealing in possibilities but that is not how philosophy or science progresses. You claim to be agnostic but in your daily life you make decisions based on your estimates of probability. You act as if God doesn’t exist, not as if He may not or probably does not!

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Part 1/3

You’ve got the burden of proof backwards.

The ~2 billion people who believe something have the burden of proof, not those who lack belief and say that they and those who founded their religion might be wrong. Being popular does not reverse the burden of proof.

If those two billion people, after serious critical thinking, become convinced in these claims, it should be easy to convince me.

Rejection of an interpretation of reality implies that a person has an alternative interpretation that has to be justified. It is impossible to be uncommitted.

THIS IS VERY WRONG. I want to be loud and clear with this point because it is elementary, yet fundamental.

A person most definitely does not have to prove an alternative in order to not believe what is being proposed.

If you told me that you were abducted by an extra-terrestrial, I do not need to provide an alternative explanation to not believe that you actually were abducted. Rather, the burden of proof is on you and anyone else who thinks you were abducted by extra-terrestrials to prove it.

TruthSeeker60;7644466:

You don’t understand the difference in the burden of proof between asserting that something happened, and that something may have happened.

You don’t understand the difference in the burden of proof between asserting something probably happened and something **may **have happened.

Actually, I understand that difference quite well. However, my positions are that I don’t believe the events of the gospels happened (which is not a claim), I don’t believe that we know enough about the apostles to know what their claimed experiences were, and I think that them being wrong is a possibility. That’s not a claim about what probably happened.

In other words, there’s little that I know about them historically. With little evidence, I’ll believe little about them. However, I’m not going to discard the possibility that they were genuinely wrong, until those who claim that that is impossible show enough evidence to meet the burden of proof.

TruthSeeker60;7644466:

I believe that the apostles were wrong no more than you believe that the apostles of Apollonius of Tyana were wrong. I have no more burden of proof for my lack of belief that the apostles of Jesus were right than you have the BOP for lack of belief that the apostles of Apollonius of Tyana was right.

Apollonius did not found a world religion!

The comparison has to do with comparing the burden of proof regarding various claims, not lining up one religion verses another (thus, the fact that Apollonius of Tyana didn’t found a world religion is irrelevant).

In other words, if I have the burden of prove to prove that the apostles of Jesus were wrong about his miraculous works and resurrection in order to justify my lack of belief (which I don’t), then you would have the burden of proof to prove that the apostles of Apollonius of Tyana were wrong to justify your lack of belief. Popularity does not reverse the burden of proof, or allow for a double-standard.

TruthSeeker60;7644466:

I do

think that holding false beliefs to be true will generally cause problems. However, we use evidence to determine whether a belief is true.

In daily life, philosophy and science people experiment to establish the truth and also test the evidence.

Experiments help us to determine what is true and what is not because it gives us new evidence (which may help us interpret older evidence).

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Part 2/3

TruthSeeker60;7644466:

tonyrey;7644124:

TruthSeeker60;7643688:

Going from, “the life and death of the founder of my religion is the basis of great moral teachings that are accepted by most people,” to, “therefore, the supernatural claims about my religion are probably true,” is a non-sequitor.

It is not a non-sequitur because the moral teaching of Christ does not make sense if it is disassociated from His teaching that we have a heavenly Father. The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity cease to have a rational basis if we are biological machines which exist for no reason or purpose.

It’s still a non-sequitor.

You have not explained why it is a non-sequitur!

Going from “X is popular” to “X is true (or probably true)” is a non-sequitor.

I do think that the ideas of liberty, equality, and fraternity are useful ideas which have been demonstrated (by evidence) to help us live fulfilling lives. I do not believe this because of some religion, and I see no reason why I have to accept your claim of popular means more likely to be right in order to value these ideas.

Also, I’m not convinced that the ideas of liberty, equality, and fraternity are all that biblical anyways. They can, along with virtually anything, be cherry-picked out of the Bible. That’s another topic though.

So, other things being equal, you believe the beliefs of a small number of people are more significant and likely to be true than those of several billion?

I believe that what is true is true regardless of how popular or unpopular it is.

I believe that the best method of determining what is true and what is false is to do so by evidence based inquiry. Are you familiar with a better method?

Of course! And they would have been justified…

If I’m interpreting you correctly, you think that until a claim is justified (confirmed) by evidence, the popularity of the claim is irrelevant when it comes to the truth value of the claim. If that’s so, why did you spawn this entire discussion on popularity by saying, in post 325, that I would have to explain why the moral teaching of Jesus are popular in order to believe that it’s possible that the apostles were wrong?

TruthSeeker60;7644466:

I shouldn’t assume

that just because someone believes something, or that a certain percentage of the population believes something, and the belief has been around for a while, that it’s true.

Once again you ignore probability!

Jumping from “X is popular” to “X is probably true” is a non-sequitor.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Part 3/3

You think you can establish your case by dealing in possibilities but that is not how philosophy or science progresses.

What “case” are you talking about? I’ve mentioned that it’s possible for the apostles to be wrong. We can only assess probability of something insofar as evidence indicates the probability of something. If there is no evidence for or against something, we cannot say that it is probable or improbable.

You claim to be agnostic but in your daily life you make decisions based on your estimates of probability.

To be agnostic means not to know, not that you take a 50-50 approach to something. When I get on an airplane, I can be strictly “agnostic” with regards to whether or not the plane will crash, even though I know that it’s unlikely to crash.

Regardless, in the absence evidence for something, I’m certainly not justified in believing it. That applies to claims about a god.

You act as if God doesn’t exist, not as if He may not or probably does not!

I act as if a god exists to the degree that I think evidence shows that a god exists.

If an unfalsifiable being did not exist, how would we be able to access the likelihood of its existence other than the lack of solid evidence for its existence?

Seriously, Tonyrey, this is getting really repetitive. If your intent was to show that I was wrong to say that the apostles may have been wrong, you’ve failed. If your intent was to frustrate me by engaging in a long discussion with me full of non-sequitors, you’ve succeeded.

 

[grannymh]

Part 2/3

I believe that what is true is true regardless of how popular or unpopular it is.

What you describe is objective reality. This would come about through objective reasoning.

I believe that the best method of determining what is true and what is false is to do so by evidence based inquiry. Are you familiar with a better method?

Objective reasoning does include examining of evidence. There are two methods of objective reasoning and lots of different kinds of evidence. Matching the round peg with the round hole would be the better method for roundness evidence.

By all means, the realm of scientific evidence is that of the material and physical world. But that does not automatically eliminate the immaterial or spiritual realm from inquiry as if it were non-existent. Ah, one says. The immaterial cannot be put under a natural science microscope. True. But that does not exclude the reality of spiritual existence which can be known by the tools of reason which are part of our human nature. The tools of reason include but are not limited to observation, analysis, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought. I like to include gut instinct or woman’s intuition.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventure of the journey.

 

[grannymh]

Part 3/3

What “case” are you talking about? I’ve mentioned that it’s possible for the apostles to be wrong. We can only assess probability of something insofar as evidence indicates the probability of something. If there is no evidence for or against something, we cannot say that it is probable or improbable.

I cannot speak for other Christian religions. Catholicism recognizes “foot-in-the-mouth” Peter. No matter. It is the Holy Spirit Who, from day one, guides the Catholic Church in defining Catholic Dogma.

 

[tonyrey]

Rejection of an interpretation of reality implies that a person has an alternative interpretation that has to be justified. It is impossible to be uncommitted.

You don’t make it loud and clear by shouting. You merely make people think “Methinks he protesteth too much”… A strong argument doesn’t need capitalisation.
You have ignored my point (read Sartre) that it is impossible to be uncommitted. Even the rejection of a belief is a form of commitment.

A person most definitely does not have to prove an alternative in order to not believe what is being proposed.

I did not say you do. You can disbelieve what you like but if you give no reason for your disbelief you are being irrational.

If you told me that you were abducted by an extra-terrestrial, I do not need to provide an alternative explanation to not believe that you actually were abducted. Rather, the burden of proof is on you and anyone else who thinks you were abducted by extra-terrestrials to prove it.

Abduction is a far cry from an interpretation of reality and a philosophy of life. Agnosticism is an attempt to sit on the fence but in practice you fall on one side or the other. “He who is not for me is against me”… Just as the Western nations claim to support Libya and do nothing to prevent Gadaffi from torturing and massacring his people.

However, my positions are that I don’t believe the events of the gospels happened (which is not a claim…

Of course it’s a claim! A claim can be negative as well as positive, e.g. a plea of not guilty.

I don’t believe that we know enough about the apostles to know what their claimed experiences were, and I think that them being wrong is a possibility.
In other words, there’s little that I know about them historically. With little evidence, I’ll believe little about them. However, I’m not going to discard the possibility that they were genuinely wrong, until those who claim that that is impossible show enough evidence to meet the burden of proof.

You have the evidence of Christ’s teaching which has been handed down from them for two thousand years. The fact that you’re not a Christian demonstrates that you believe they were wrong but you are not prepared to justify your belief. One can only assume that you are unable to do so…

That’s not a claim about what probably happened.

It’s a claim about what has not happened!

I believe that the apostles were wrong no more than you believe that the apostles of Apollonius of Tyana were wrong. I have no more burden of proof for my lack of belief that the apostles of Jesus were right than you have the BOP for lack of belief that the apostles of Apollonius of Tyana was right.

Apollonius did not found a world religion!

The comparison has to do with comparing the burden of proof regarding various claims, not lining up one religion verses another (thus, the fact that Apollonius of Tyana didn’t found a world religion is irrelevant).

It is highly relevant because Apollonius made no impact on the history of the human race - which requires explanation.

In other words, if I have the burden of prove to prove that the apostles of Jesus were wrong about his miraculous works and resurrection in order to justify my lack of belief (which I don’t), then you would have the burden of proof to prove that the apostles of Apollonius of Tyana were wrong to justify your lack of belief. Popularity does not reverse the burden of proof, or allow for a double-standard.

Popularity does reverse the burden of proof when you offer no reason for your disbelief.
The vast majority of people believe material objects exist but when confronted with a sceptic the burden of proof is on them.

In daily life, philosophy and science people experiment to establish the truth and also test the evidence.

Experiments help us to determine what is true and what is not because it gives us new evidence (which may help us interpret older evidence).

Experiments are made to obtain evidence when there is none! You are ignoring the creative aspect of the quest for truth.

 

[tonyrey]

do think that the ideas of liberty, equality, and fraternity are useful ideas which have been demonstrated (by evidence) to help us live fulfilling lives. I do not believe this because of some religion, and I see no reason why I have to accept your claim of popular means more likely to be right in order to value these ideas.

In other words you accept the truth of those ideas but believe the Apostles who communicated the teaching of Jesus were mistaken even though that is the basis of those ideas.

Also, I’m not convinced that the ideas of liberty, equality, and fraternity are all that biblical anyways. They can, along with virtually anything, be cherry-picked out of the Bible. That’s another topic though.

It is not only the ideas but the rational basis of those ideas - that we are all children of the same Father.

So, other things being equal, you believe the beliefs of a small number of people are more significant and likely to be true than those of several billion?

I believe that what is true is true regardless of how popular or unpopular it is.

You have evaded my question. Other things being equal, do you believe the beliefs of a small number of people are more significant and likely to be true than those of several billion?

I believe that the best method of determining what is true and what is false is to do so by evidence based inquiry. Are you familiar with a better method?

And if the evidence is not absolutely conclusive?

If I’m interpreting you correctly, you think that until a claim is justified (confirmed) by evidence, the popularity of the claim is irrelevant when it comes to the truth value of the claim. If that’s so, why did you spawn this entire discussion on popularity by saying, in post 325, that I would have to explain why the moral teaching of Jesus are popular in order to believe that it’s possible that the apostles were wrong?

You are misinterpreting me. Popularity, evidence and moral values go hand in hand.

I shouldn’t assume that just because someone believes something, or that a certain percentage of the population believes something, and the belief has been around for a while, that it’s true.

You are distorting the facts. “something” = civilised principles and values. “certain percentage” = one third of the human race. “a while” = 2000 years.

Jumping from “X is popular” to “X is probably true” is a non-sequitor.

(should be non sequitur)

Another distortion. X is is worldwide and X reflects the basic values of modern civilisation.

 

[tonyrey]

You think you can establish your case by dealing in possibilities but that is not how philosophy or science progresses.

The case that the Apostles were mistaken and that Christian beliefs are false. There is plenty of evidence - as you have conceded - that Christian values are true yet those values are inextricably linked to Christian beliefs.

To be agnostic means not to know, not that you take a 50-50 approach to something. When I get on an airplane, I can be strictly “agnostic” with regards to whether or not the plane will crash, even though I know that it’s unlikely to crash.

In your daily life you ignore the possibility that Christianity is true, i.e. you estimate the probability as negligible. On what rational basis? That blind processes are a more probable explanation of our existence?

Regardless, in the absence evidence for something, I’m certainly not justified in believing it. That applies to claims about a god.

You are assuming there is no evidence in spite of your adherence to Christian values.

You act as if God doesn’t exist, not as if He may not or probably does not!

I act as if a god exists to the degree that I think evidence shows that a god exists.

Which is nil! You refuse to accept the fact that the only rational basis for the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity is the teaching of Jesus that we are all children of one Father in heaven - in spite of being unable to produce an alternative explanation.

If an unfalsifiable being did not exist, how would we be able to access the likelihood of its existence other than the lack of solid evidence for its existence?

For centuries materialists have been attempting to falsify the existence of God. Are you right and they were all misguided?

Seriously, Tonyrey, this is getting really repetitive. If your intent was to show that I was wrong to say that the apostles may have been wrong, you’ve failed. If your intent was to frustrate me by engaging in a long discussion with me full of non-sequitors, you’ve succeeded.

Your constant repetition of “non sequiturs” does nothing to further your argument… Why can’t you be honest and admit you are convinced the Apostles were wrong instead of hiding behind a facade of possibility?

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Part 1/3

Seriously, Tonyrey, you have huge issues in you posts regarding the burden of proof. Your posts have become little more than you reversing the BOP.

You have ignored my point (read Sartre) that it is impossible to be uncommitted. Even the rejection of a belief is a form of commitment.

So according to you, a person who doesn’t know whether or not the San Francisco 49ers won Super Bowl V has a form of “commitment”. That’s silly.

You can disbelieve what you like but if you give no reason for your disbelief you are being irrational.

The absence of sufficient evidence for something is justification for not believing it. It’s those who do believe who have a burden of proof, not those who don’t.

Agnosticism is an attempt to sit on the fence but in practice you fall on one side or the other.

What’s more intellectually honest: Admitting that you’re not sure about something, or believing something without sufficient evidence?

BTW, agnosticism refers to knowledge, not belief. Thus, being agnostic does not necessarily mean standing on a 50-50 fence. I believe things to the degree that they’re supported by evidence. If I see no evidence for something, I treat it, for practical purposes, as if there is about a 0% chance of being true.

TruthSeeker60;7646098:

my positions are that I don’t believe the events of the gospels happened (which is not a claim),

Of course it’s a claim! A claim can be negative as well as positive, e.g. a plea of not guilty.

Wow! After reading this I think you actually don’t understand the difference between claiming that something is not so, and saying that you don’t believe something is so. The former is a negative claim, that does entail a BOP, while the latter is lack of acceptance of a positive claim.

You have the evidence of Christ’s teaching which has been handed down from them for two thousand years.

What evidence do you have that these teachings originated with Jesus, and how would that be evidence for things such as the resurrection?

The fact that you’re not a Christian demonstrates that you believe they were wrong

I lack belief in Christianity. I believe that Christians are wrong only to the degree that the evidence the for Christianity has fallen short of sufficient evidence to justify such belief.

TruthSeeker60;7646098:

I don’t believe that we know enough about the apostles to know what their claimed experiences were, and I think that them being wrong is a possibility. That’s not

a claim about what probably happened.

It’s a claim about what has not happened!

Wow! You’re really confused. Saying that something is merely possible is not a claim that something did not happen.

TruthSeeker60;7646098:

The comparison has to do with comparing the burden of proof regarding various claims, not lining up one religion verses another (thus, the fact that Apollonius of Tyana didn’t found a world religion is irrelevant).

It is highly relevant because Apollonius made no impact on the history of the human race - which requires explanation.

The impact a belief has on the world does not reverse the burden of proof!

If I have the burden of prove to prove that the apostles of Jesus were wrong about his miraculous works and resurrection in order to justify my lack of belief (which I don’t), then you would have the burden of proof to prove that the apostles of Apollonius of Tyana were wrong to justify your lack of belief. Popularity does not reverse the burden of proof, or allow for a double-standard.

Popularity does reverse the burden of proof when you offer no reason for your disbelief.

A person who lacks belief in something does not have the burden of proof. I don’t know why you don’t seem to understand that.

You are ignoring the creative aspect of the quest for truth.

Regardless of how creative a person is, no claim about the world is justified without evidence.

In other words you accept the truth of those ideas but believe the Apostles who communicated the teaching of Jesus were mistaken even though that is the basis of those ideas.

Correction: I don’t see enough evidence to justify belief that the apostles existed in the manner presented in the Bible and correctly preached that Jesus was a god made man. I starting to bang my head against a wall due to you not being able to understand these differences.

You have evaded my question. Other things being equal, do you believe the beliefs of a small number of people are more significant and likely to be true than those of several billion?

I didn’t evade your question, rather I said that the popularity of a truth claim does not necessarily mean that it’s more likely to be true. If the only differentiating actors between two or more competing claims is their difference in their popularity, than those claims are equally likely to be true. If, however, a claim is popular because it is supported by sufficient evidence, than that claim is probably true due to the evidence, not popularity. If Christianity was truly popular because it’s supported by sufficient evidence, it would be easy to convince me to be a Christian, rather than go through all this trouble to reverse the burden of proof.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Part 2/3

TruthSeeker60;7646101:

I believe that the best method of determining what is true and what is false is to do so by evidence based inquiry. Are you familiar with a better method?

And if the evidence is not absolutely conclusive?

You believe something to the degree that it’s supported by evidence. If there isn’t an explanation for something that has been verified by evidence, you aught to admit to Socratic ignorance, rather than making something up or resorting to an argument from ignorance (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance ).

BTW, there’s not such thing as radically absolute conclusiveness.

TruthSeeker60;7646101:

If I’m interpreting you correctly, you think that until a claim is justified (confirmed) by evidence, the popularity of the claim is irrelevant when it comes to the truth value of the claim. If that’s so, why did you spawn this entire discussion on popularity by saying, in post 325, that I would have to explain why the moral teaching of Jesus are popular in order to believe that it’s possible that the apostles were wrong?

You are misinterpreting me. Popularity, evidence and moral values go hand in hand.

“Evidence” is a term that refers to something used to determine the truth of something. For clarification, are you saying that the popularity of something or the usefulness of its moral values are evidence for it?

TruthSeeker60;7644466:

I shouldn’t assume

that just because someone believes something, or that a certain percentage of the population believes something, and the belief has been around for a while, that it’s true.

You are distorting the facts. “something” = civilised principles and values. “certain percentage” = one third of the human race. “a while” = 2000 years.

First, I wasn’t distorting any facts because I wasn’t presenting any facts. Rather, I told you what type of assumptions I wouldn’t make. What I was saying is that I shouldn’t assume that just because a belief is old or popular that it’s true.

Second, if the something you believe is merely “civilized principles and values”, why believe the magical things related to your religion? If you can’t find a way to hold those things without extraordinary magical things about your religion, wouldn’t ti be better to hold those things due to their usefulness to society rather than to believe in you religion without sufficient evidence to justify such belief?

TruthSeeker60;7646101:

Jumping from “X is popular” to “X is probably true” is a non-sequitor.

Another distortion. X is is worldwide and X reflects the basic values of modern civilisation.

So what! Saying that “since X is worldwide it is probably true” is the same thing as jumping from “X is popular” to “X is probably true,” which is a non-sequitur. Also, the fact that contemporary Christianity, which draws inspiration from the Bible, happens to preach values that are in comformity with the values of modern civilization, for many reasons, doesn’t mean that the supernatural claims of Christianity are more likely to be true.

TruthSeeker60;7646103:

What “case” are you talking about? I’ve mentioned that it’s possible for the apostles to be wrong. We can only assess probability of something insofar as evidence indicates the probability of something. If there is no evidence for or against something, we cannot say that it is probable or improbable.

The case that the Apostles were mistaken and that Christian beliefs are false.

I never made that claim, but rather said that that is a possibility.

There is plenty of evidence - as you have conceded - that Christian values are true yet those values are inextricably linked to Christian beliefs.

I most certainly did not concede that values you’re talking about (liberty, equality, fraternity) cannot be held apart from Christianity. I may have conceded that such values could be taken (perhaps cherry-picked) out of the Bible.

Anyways, are you indicating that if you didn’t believe that a god became man, died, and rose from the dead, that you wouldn’t hold those values?

In your daily life you ignore the possibility that Christianity is true, i.e. you estimate the probability as negligible.

Correction: I’m treating Christianity as true insofar as belief in Christianity is justified by evidence. I’m open to the possibility that the supernatural claims of Christianity are true in the even, and only in the event, that I become aware of sufficient evidence to justify those beliefs.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Part 3/3

You are assuming there is no evidence in spite of your adherence to Christian values.

First, I’m certainly not assuming there is no decent evidence for a god. Rather, I have searched for evidence for the existence of a god. In fact, I ceased being a Catholic because I searched for evidence to justify my supernatural beliefs, and found them terrible or non-existent.

Second, the fact that I hold many values that many contemporary Christians hold is not evidence that Christianity is true.

I would even argue, and this may be a good topic for another thread, that many beliefs that used to be considered “Christian” in the past would be virtually unanimously dispised by Christians today. For example, Thomas Aquinas thought that heretics should be burned. Most Christians in the south were pro-slavery, and used the Bible to justify their pro-slavery positions. Of course those who opposed them on the issue of slavery also drew inspiration from the Bible, since the Bible can be used to justify almost anything. Considering that, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that moral values that are held by most people in modern civilization are considered to be Christian values.

You refuse to accept the fact that the only rational basis for the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity is the teaching of Jesus that we are all children of one Father in heaven - in spite of being unable to produce an alternative explanation.

I refuse to accept claims without proper evidence. I do not think that you have to believe that a god became man in order to believe that those principles are useful to society because I’ve seen no evidence that that would be necessary.

Regarding an alternative explanation, I think that liberty, equality, and fraternity are great principles because the societies that adopt them benefit tremendously from adopting them. Such societies are much better places to live. Wouldn’t you agree? Would you prefer to live in a society that adapts these principles, or a society that doesn’t? If you’d prefer to live in a society that does adapt these principles, wouldn’t that be a reasonable explanation for why these are good principles regardless of whether or not a god became man 2000 years ago? If not, why?

TruthSeeker60;7646103:

If an unfalsifiable being did not exist, how would we be able to access the likelihood of its existence other than the lack of solid evidence for its existence?

For centuries materialists have been attempting to falsify the existence of God. Are you right and they were all misguided?

It depends on the god claim, since some gods may be falsifiable and others (especially a deistic god) may not be falsifiable.

The reason why I was asking the question was to get you to consider the scenario that someone presents you with an unfalsifiable claim that unless you believe a certain thing or behave a certain way, a bad thing may happen to you, how would you treat the claim? Would you treat the claim very seriously without evidence? If not, why should I treat a claim about the existence of a god as if it were true without decent evidence?

TruthSeeker60;7646103:

Seriously, Tonyrey, this is getting really repetitive. If your intent was to show that I was wrong to say that the apostles may have been wrong, you’ve failed. If your intent was to frustrate me by engaging in a long discussion with me full of non-sequitors, you’ve succeeded.

Your constant repetition of “non sequiturs” does nothing to further your argument…

My point has been that I haven’t seen sufficient evidence to justify the supernatural beliefs about Christianity. The fact that you have been presenting non-sequiturs is relevant to that point.

Why can’t you be honest and admit you are convinced the Apostles were wrong instead of hiding behind a facade of possibility?

I am being honest when I say that I don’t know enough about the apostles to believe that they were honestly mistaken, their claims were modified later by those who engaged in pious fraud, they actually did start Christianity as a scam (which I don’t believe), or any of the many possible scenarios. Honestly, I’d prefer to admit to Socratic ignorance rather than to assert something without sufficient evidence.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Objective reasoning does include examining of evidence. There are two methods of objective reasoning and lots of different kinds of evidence.

What do you mean there are two methods of objective reasoning?

Ultimately, when considering claims about reality, the best way to determine whether or not claims are true is by evaluating the evidence. We cannot make claims about reality without any evidence, and beliefs about reality are only justified to the degree that there is sufficient evidence to justify such belief.

By all means, the realm of scientific evidence is that of the material and physical world. But that does not automatically eliminate the immaterial or spiritual realm from inquiry as if it were non-existent.

Evidence based inquiry, of which science is a subset, is limited to testing things that manifest themselves in a detectable way. That is usually what we mean when we say that something exists. If the supernatural did not manifest in some detectable way in this world, we would have no way of knowing it exists.

Ah, one says. The immaterial cannot be put under a natural science microscope.The tools of reason include but are not limited to observation, analysis,

I’ve never heard a person object to the supernatural because it can’t be observed under a microscope. Rather, I do object to believing in the existence of something that does not manifest itself in this world in some way.

The tools of reason include but are not limited to observation, analysis, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.

Which one of those could and would verify the existence of the “supernatural”.

 

[lampstand]

I think there’s no evidence that people like this would accept. They don’t want to have answers.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

I think there’s no evidence that people like this would accept. They don’t want to have answers.

I don’t intend to offend by saying this, but I do think it may be of some good for you to see this comment from my perspective… When I see a person post a statement like this, I get the feeling that it’s a defense mechanism. In other words, it defends one’s belief by telling one’s self that the non-believer is just close minded.

I am willing to believe anything for which there is sufficient evidence to justify believing in it. That applies to claims about a god or gods.