Is Religion a Scam?

[Charlemagne_II]

*If religion is a scam, Conscience is too. *

:thumbsup:

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker
TruthSeeker60;7708015:

Just because something isn’t currently explained doesn’t mean it is somehow evidence of a healing by a supernatural entity. It just means that the cause is unknown. Going from “doctors don’t know how X happened” to “therefore, a god did it” is an argument from ignorance

.

Not necessarily. That’s only true if you assume there is no God to do it.

NO! The lack of a verified explanation for something is not evidence that a god is responsible for it. Going from “we don’t know what cause it” to “therefore, ‘X’ caused it” is an argument from ignorance. I suggest you learn what an argument from ignorance is.

To justify belief in your claim, you need to have evidence for it, not just the lack of a verified alternative explanation.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*Going from “we don’t know what cause it” to “therefore, ‘X’ caused it” is an argument from ignorance. *

How does a Truth Seeker know for a fact that there is no God to perform miracles?

Please verify that there is no God. How would you go about doing that?

 

[Wesley7]

Is Religion a Scam?

No.

 

[tonyrey]

No.

Why not?

 

[tonyrey]

In my post that Tonyrey was replying to, I never mentioned anything about “materialism” (whatever that is). Whether or not I’m a “materialist” depends on what one means by that word. Based off of what you said, I’m guessing that I would not fit your definition of a “materialist”.

My view is that claims about reality aught to be believed if, and only if, there is evidence for it. If one does have evidence for something, one aught to believe the claim to the degree that it is supported by the evidence. If there is disconfirming evidence, no evidence, or terrible evidence, one aught not believe the claim. Do you disagree?

Applying this to whether or not a disembodied spirit or another world exists, if there is disconfirming evidence, no evidence, or terrible evidence for those claims, they aught not be believed.

What evidence can you give for the existence of intangible realities like your mind, truth, goodness, freedom and love?

 

[tonyrey]

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, to suspend judgment is to lack belief.

To suspend judgment is to remain neutral and if the matter is important to investigate further. To sit on the fence with regard to the existence of God is unreasonable because it is tantamount to disbelief.

If there’s no known evidence for a claim, then it aught not be believed. If there is some evidence for a claim, it aught to be believed only to the degree that it is supported by the evidence. A person who, after searching, has found no evidence or terrible evidence for a claim, and thus doesn’t believe the claim, does not have to explain why a belief is popular.
On the contrary, I listened to what many people, including renown theologians and apologists, and agreed with many other scholars that none of the logical proof for the existence of a god are sound and that evidence for a god is, as far as I can tell, terrible or non-existent.

How do you explain the existence of our power of reason, our freedom and responsibility and our capacity for love?

Democracy is based on the principle that the majority decide who will represent them and the majority of their representatives decide what is right and just for their society. In other words we have an obligation to respect the views of the majority even though they may be mistaken.

Actually, democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have equal say in governmental actions (either directly or through representatives), not a method of determining what is true.

A democracy is a form of government in which citizens accept the **truth **of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity - and the probability that the majority of their representatives will decide what is right and just for their society because all views are considered.

Whether or not a claim “concerns the nature of reality which affects our whole attitude to life and the way we regard ourselves and others” is irrelevant to the fact that we are not justified in accepting a claim without evidence?

Again, I’ve asked you this countless times, but may someone be justified in accepting a claim without evidence? I think you actually think the answer is yes. In this case, you think people may be justified in accepting arbitrary beliefs.

You are mistaken. One should not accept a claim without evidence but neither should one accept a counterclaim without evidence!

The beliefs are not arbitrary because there is substantial evidence.
If there is substantial evidence, then the beliefs are justified. However, popularity of a claim is not necessarily evidence that a claim is true.

Popularity can reinforce evidence.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

*Popularity can reinforce evidence. *

Suppose 5,000 people came down a hill all screaming and running for their lives. You ask what is the trouble and they tell you they have seen a UFO in the sky bigger than a city. Along comes a single man behind the 5,000 grinning from ear to ear.

“Don’t listen to them,” he says. “It’s mass hysteria I saw no such UFO. Go on with your lives as if no UFO exists.”

Whom do you believe? And why would you stick around to see if it is the single man who is the real Truth Teller?

Numbers count in any argument.

“It is rare that the public sentiment decides immorally or unwisely, and the individual who differ from it ought to distrust and examine well his own opinions.” Thomas Jefferson

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey

*Popularity can reinforce evidence. *

Suppose 5,000 people came down a hill all screaming and running for their lives. You ask what is the trouble and they tell you they have seen a UFO in the sky bigger than a city. Along comes a single man behind the 5,000 grinning from ear to ear.

“Don’t listen to them,” he says. “It’s mass hysteria I saw no such UFO. Go on with your lives as if no UFO exists.”

Whom do you believe? And why would you stick around to see if it is the single man who is the real Truth Teller?

Numbers count in any argument.

“It is rare that the public sentiment decides immorally or unwisely, and the individual who differ from it ought to distrust and examine well his own opinions.” Thomas Jefferson

Precisely! The opinion of those who despise the beliefs of the majority is often the result of wishful thinking… To be supercilious is to be subhuman.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7711185:

NO! The lack of a verified explanation for something is not evidence that a god is responsible for it. Going from “we don’t know what caused it” to “therefore, ‘X’ caused it” is an argument from ignorance

. I suggest you learn what an argument from ignorance is.

To justify belief in your claim, you need to have evidence for it, not just the lack of a verified alternative explanation.

How does a Truth Seeker know for a fact that there is no God to perform miracles?

Please verify that there is no God. How would you go about doing that?

You, as well as most theists I run into, love to misrepresent other non-believers and myself in order to attack straw men.

I don’t claim that there is no disembodied mind that created the universe (or “God”), because, like you indicate, the existence of such a being is not falsifiable. However, I lack belief in such a being because of lack of evidence for it. Similarly, neither of us know for a fact that there are no invisible and intangible fairies, since the claim for the existence of such creatures is unfalsifiable. However, neither of us would seriously think that fairies exist without evidence for the existence of these creatures.

People who are “a-theists” are people who lack a belief in a god. This does not necessarily mean that one claims to know, with absolute certainty, that there is no disembodied mind that created the universe.

Now if a particular god was defined in an incoherent way, or in a way that somehow contradicts what we observe in reality, I would say that I know that that particular god does not exist.

Now this is largely aside from the fact that going from “none of the proposed causes have been verified by evidence” to “therefore, ‘X’ caused it” is an argument from ignorance.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7708018:

In my post that Tonyrey was replying to, I never mentioned anything about “materialism” (whatever that is). Whether or not I’m a “materialist” depends on what one means by that word. Based off of what you said, I’m guessing that I would not fit your definition of a “materialist”.

My view is that claims about reality aught to be believed if, and only if, there is evidence for it. If one does

have evidence for something, one aught to believe the claim to the degree that it is supported by the evidence. If there is disconfirming evidence, no evidence, or terrible evidence, one aught not believe the claim. Do you disagree?

Applying this to whether or not a disembodied spirit or another world exists, if there is disconfirming evidence, no evidence, or terrible evidence for those claims, they aught not be believed.

What evidence can you give for the existence of intangible realities like your mind, truth, goodness, freedom and love?

You’re really grasping at straws by making this categorical error by speaking of truth, goodness, freedom and love as actual “things” that actually “exist”. It’s also amazing that you’re doing this in order to essentially argue that your beliefs, when it comes to religion, don’t need to be supported by evidence. You wouldn’t believe other things without evidence, thus, this is special pleading.

I suggest that you learn about the fallacy of reification. Speaking of truth, goodness, freedom and love as actual “things” that actually “exist”, as opposed to saying they exist in a metaphorical sense, is to make this fallacy because they are abstractions. I did not include mind in this list because depending on what one means by “mind”, it may not be an abstraction.

As for your post after this, I don’t really have the time to address it now. I may address it later if I don’t think it will be too much of a waste of time.

 

[davidv]

You’re really grasping at straws by making this categorical error by speaking of truth, goodness, freedom and love as actual “things” that actually “exist”. It’s also amazing that you’re doing this in order to essentially argue that your beliefs, when it comes to religion, don’t need to be supported by evidence. You wouldn’t believe other things without evidence, thus, this is special pleading.

I suggest that you learn about the fallacy of reification. Speaking of truth, goodness, freedom and love as actual “things” that actually “exist”, as opposed to saying they exist in a metaphorical sense, is to make this fallacy because they are abstractions. I did not include mind in this list because depending on what one means by “mind”, it may not be an abstraction.

As for your post after this, I don’t really have the time to address it now. I may address it later if I don’t think it will be too much of a waste of time.

Why do you resort to false claims? My belief is supported by evidence.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

TruthSeeker

People who are “a-theists” are people who lack a belief in a god. This does not necessarily mean that one claims to know, with absolute certainty, that there is no disembodied mind that created the universe.

So you are allowing the possibility that there may be a disembodied mind (=God) that created the universe?

 

[tonyrey]

You’re really grasping at straws by making this categorical error by speaking of truth, goodness, freedom and love as actual “things” that actually “exist”.

You’re grasping at straws by claiming truth is merely a metaphor. Every statement you make implies that you believe it is true. What does true mean? Is it a metaphor or a description of fact? If you deny that truth is the correspondence of a statement to an aspect of reality you might as well keep your mouth closed because everything that comes out of it is meaningless! I’m fascinated to know how you explain correspondence in terms of material objects. Is that a metaphor too? What about you? Are you a metaphor?.

It’s also amazing that you’re doing this in order to essentially argue that your beliefs, when it comes to religion, don’t need to be supported by evidence. You wouldn’t believe other things without evidence, thus, this is special pleading.

Can you see, hear, taste, smell or touch evidence? What interprets the evidence? A lump of tissue in a skull that doesn’t even know it exists?

I suggest that you learn about the fallacy of reification. Speaking of truth, goodness, freedom and love as actual “things” that actually “exist”, as opposed to saying they exist in a metaphorical sense, is to make this fallacy because they are abstractions. I did not include mind in this list because depending on what one means by “mind”, it may not be an abstraction.

What precisely is “mind” in your scheme of things?

As for your post after this, I don’t really have the time to address it now. I may address it later if I don’t think it will be too much of a waste of time.

I’m sure you don’t have time and won’t address it because materialism faces insurmountable difficulties. Logical positivism was abandoned long ago when its proponents realised they couldn’t reduce the verification principle to "actual “things” that actually “exist”. The fatal flaw in your argument is that fallacies don’t exist because they are not observable by the senses…

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7715165:

You’re really grasping at straws by making this categorical error by speaking of truth, goodness, freedom and love as actual “things” that actually “exist”. It’s also amazing that you’re doing this in order to essentially argue that your beliefs, when it comes to religion, don’t need to be supported by evidence

. You wouldn’t believe other things without evidence, thus, this is special pleading.

I suggest that you learn about the fallacy of reification. Speaking of truth, goodness, freedom and love as actual “things” that actually “exist”, as opposed to saying they exist in a metaphorical sense, is to make this fallacy because they are abstractions. I did not include mind in this list because depending on what one means by “mind”, it may not be an abstraction.

As for your post after this, I don’t really have the time to address it now. I may address it later if I don’t think it will be too much of a waste of time.

Why do you resort to false claims? My belief is supported by evidence.

In the post you were quoting, I was referring to Tonyrey, who was essentially arguing that his religious beliefs don’t need evidence.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker
TruthSeeker60;7715163:

People who are “a-theists” are people who lack a belief in a god. This does not

necessarily mean that one claims to know, with absolute certainty, that there is no disembodied mind that created the universe.

So you are allowing the possibility that there may be a disembodied mind (=God) that created the universe?

That’s a possibility that I’m open to provided that there is evidence for it.

I’m pretty open-minded in general. However, the way that I discern what is true (thus keeping my brain from falling out) is by relying on evidence.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

You’re grasping at straws by claiming truth is merely a metaphor.

I didn’t say that truth was a metaphor, so please don’t attack this straw man again. Truth may be defined as the condition of being in in accord with reality. That’s not a “thing” that “exists”. A condition is not a “thing” that “exists”.

I did say that truth, in literature, may be said to be a “thing” that “exists” in a metaphorical sense, like sweetness may be said to be a thing that exists in literature in a metaphorical sense. That’s not the same thing as saying truth or sweetness are metaphors.

If you deny that truth is the correspondence of a statement to an aspect of reality you might as well keep your mouth closed because everything that comes out of it is meaningless!

Truth is the correspondence of a statement to reality, but correspondence is not a “thing” that “exists”. It’s an abstraction.

Can you see, hear, taste, smell or touch evidence?

I’ve already told you that by “evidence” I mean anything that can be used to determine whether or not an assertion is true. Can something be used to determine whether or not an assertion is true if it cannot be detected in any way? If so, provide an example. If not, then you’re in agreement with me on this issue.

I’m sure you don’t have time and won’t address it because materialism faces insurmountable difficulties.

I’ve asked you to define this term you’re attacking. Depending on how it is defined, I may or may not fit under it. Thus, until you specify what you mean by “materialism”, you’re attacking a straw man.

It’s funny how far some people will go to argue that their religious beliefs don’t require evidence, when they would use evidence for virtually all other aspects of their lives!

 

[tonyrey]

In the post you were quoting, I was referring to Tonyrey, who was essentially arguing that his religious beliefs don’t need evidence.

False!

 

[tonyrey]

Truth may be defined as the condition of being in accord with reality. That’s not a “thing” that “exists”. A condition is not a “thing” that “exists”.

A “condition” is not necessarily “a condition of being”. It may refer to a **non-existent **situation whereas “a condition of being” describes an actual state of affairs - either mental or physical.

I did say that truth, in literature, may be said to be a “thing” that “exists” in a metaphorical sense, like sweetness may be said to be a thing that exists in literature in a metaphorical sense. That’s not the same thing as saying truth or sweetness are metaphors.

It still implies that truth is **not as real as **a material object. Presumably you think it exists only in the mind - like a unicorn.

Truth is the correspondence of a statement to reality, but correspondence is not a “thing” that “exists”. It’s an abstraction.

What does the abstraction refer to? Thoughts, beliefs and decisions are also abstractions. Don’t they exist?

Can you see, hear, taste, smell or touch evidence?

I’ve already told you that by “evidence” I mean anything that can be used to determine whether or not an assertion is true. Can something be used to determine whether or not an assertion is true if it cannot be detected in any way? If so, provide an example. If not, then you’re in agreement with me on this issue.

I’ve just provided two! How about your mind? How can that be detected?

I’ve asked you to define this term you’re attacking. Depending on how it is defined, I may or may not fit under it.

Materialism is the belief that only material objects exist and that intangible realities like minds, beliefs and decisions are myths.

It’s funny how far some people will go to argue that their religious beliefs don’t require evidence, when they would use evidence for virtually all other aspects of their lives!

It’s funny how far some people will go to argue that their irreligious beliefs don’t require evidence when they would use intangible evidence for the most important aspects of their lives! Do you think a person is merely a body?

BTW A democracy is a form of government in which citizens accept the **truth **of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity - and the probability that the majority of their representatives will decide what is right and just for their society because all views are considered.

One should not accept a claim without evidence but nor should one accept a counterclaim without evidence - and popularity can reinforce evidence.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

TruthSeeker

That’s a possibility that I’m open to provided that there is evidence for it.

What would you call evidence? God appearing to you in person?

The problem with your theory is that everything comes down to evidence, which for some people is apparent in the way God abides in them. For other people like yourself that is delusional. If you don’t want God to exist, you’ll find plenty of reasons not to believe in Him. But one thing He is not going to do is appear to you in person without your first believing in him in your person.

As Pascal said, with humans we must know them in order to love them. But with God you must love Him in order to know Him.

I suspect God is not going to prove Himself to you. And I suspect you are not going to prove yourself to God. The bottom line is, what if there is a God, and when you die, you have not proven yourself to God?