4 ms·

As somebody else said, I have nothing against you personally but I believe that the narrative that you are pushing is false so I have to rebut it. > Religions

As somebody else said, I have nothing against you personally but I believe that the narrative that you are pushing is false so I have to rebut it. > Religions include all sorts of truth. How so? By definition, there is only one truth. Either something can be demonstrated or it cannot. If it can't be demonstrated then it is false. There is no room for interpretation in truth. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt: If what you were trying to say was: there are some things in religion that cannot yet be explained by science, then you are using the god of the gaps theory. That argument has been debunked many times before. If what you are trying to say is that there are some things that will always be unknown, therefore God did it, then you are using the argument from ignorance. Finally, if what you are trying to say(but I doubt it as it would require you to admit that your religion is not entirely correct), is that even though religion and everything that comes with it, the morals, the miracles so on and so forth have been largely debunked, there are still some things that hold up even today(eg: a phenomenon was explained properly and its explanation is not far from the one we actually have today), then what you are doing is the equivalent of buying a lottery ticket, finding out that you guessed a single number correctly but instead of admitting that you were mostly wrong, proclaim that because you guessed that single number, then the rest of them must be correct as well. That's deceitful. > Given that there are a wide variety of religions and belief systems, I'm surprised that you outright decry them as all false Well that's the problem, isn't it? There are many religions out there and not one of them can be deemed as the correct one. Not by scientist but most importantly, not by believers as well. The result is a collection of different accounts about how the Earth was created, who should be worshiped or not(a cow or a virgin?), which prophet was correct(Jesus?) and when the end of the world will occur. So if there are not correct then they are not true. Whether some of them have some semblance of truth in them(by luck most likely) does not make them true. Not one of them has provided evidence that what they preach is true. > I personally belong to a religion which encourages experimentation I dont think so. If that was true we would not be having this conversation. To do some experimentation, you need to apply logic. Religion is based on faith. Faith requires you to suspend your own logic and accept the answers provided to you as the truth. Therefore experimentation in the realm of religion is not possible as you would inevitably come to a point where logic would tell you that something is not true but your religion says it is or vice versa. In this case, you would either give up on logic and accept your religion as the source of truth or you would start realizing that religion is not the source of truth, but a lie. > I'd say similar to math. Math is based on logic, Math does not require faith. Religion is not Math. > religion is pretty analogus to anecdotes. Not widely generalized, and can often lead to wrong conclusions. But doeant definitely lead to wrong conclusions. Either you did not proofread yourself or you really have abandoned logic and coherent thoughts completely. If a premise is false, then conclusions based on those same premises can only lead you to the wrong conclusion. The fact that it could potentially lead you to something akin to truth is based purely on luck not because the premise was correct. Anecdotes are not a reliable source of truths. Even though witness testimonies have been given a lot of weight in our current judicial system, it does not mean that it is a reliable way of sensing our world. Our brain constantly applies all kinds of filters to the information that is communicated via our senses so that we can make sense of what is going on in the world. That is also the reason why scientists do not rely on their eyes(in particular) to validates experiments but on empiric measurements. I just want to conclude by saying that I have no problem and I even encourage you to practice your religion, but where I do not agree with you is that you present your view of the world through your religion as an alternative to the truth when it is nothing but.

swsieber 8y ago
> Either something can be demonstrated or it cannot. If it can't be demonstrated then it is false. Here's my definition of truth: "Things as they really are, have been and will be.". That sits independent of observation. > Religions include all sorts of truth That was about things like mediation, fasting, etc. being real effective principals. > > I'd say similar to math. > Math is based on logic, Math does not require faith. Religion is not Math. It depends on your religion I guess. The religion I practice describes a God with some constraints (if he broke those constraints, then he wouldn't be God). And from these contraints (axioms), various doctrines and results fall out logically. And they're coherent. And you can take the first principals and combine them in various ways to arrive at the same consistent conclusions. So that's why I say it's like math - the internal consistency, and the ability to logically derive more stuff without meeting contradictions. > > religion is pretty analogus to anecdotes. Not widely generalized, and can often lead to wrong conclusions. But doeant definitely lead to wrong conclusions. > Either you did not proofread yourself or you really have abandoned logic and coherent thoughts completely. If a premise is false, then conclusions based on those same premises can only lead you to the wrong conclusion. I think this goes back to my interpretation of truth, so a small example to illustrate what I mean. A buddhist can practice meditation because of their religion. If Buddhism is wrong, that doesn't logically mean practicing meditation is silly, wrong or ineffective. > > I personally belong to a religion which encourages experimentation > I dont think so. If that was true we would not be having this conversation. > Therefore experimentation in the realm of religion is not possible as you would inevitably come to a point where logic would tell you that something is not true but your religion says it is or vice versa. You're using some bad logic here. You're starting with "All religion is false" as a the starting point to arrive at the conclusion of "your religion is false". I'm here because I have applied logic. I have experimented with my religion, and my experimentation has brought me to where I am. I have found it to bless my life as and not contradict other sources of knowledge. I have found my religion to be a better, more reliable source of truth than "science" though. Science gets us iteratively closer to truths, not doubt, but the result of a scientific experiment never gives us absolute truth. The scientific method is about disproving things. It ultimately moves us from one imperfect model to a better but still imperfect model. > If a premise is false, then conclusions based on those same premises can only lead you to the wrong conclusion. Wrong - that's actually a false premise, an innocuous one at that, but at least easily disprovable. Proof by contradiction: 1) Suppose that x = -1 (i.e. true premise) 2) Then a false premise is x = 1 (i.e. contradicts the true premise) 3) From the false premise, conclude x^2 = 1 4) That's correct though, contradicting your statement of "false premises can only lead to wrong conclusions". ... That's pretty much the entire point of my post - false premises don't always lead to false conclusions, and if you think false premises preclude any conclusions built upon them from being true through other logical means, then you're throwing out the baby with the bath water.

swsieber 8y ago

> Either something can be demonstrated or it cannot. If it can't be demonstrated then it is false. Here's my definition of truth: "Things as they really are, have been and will be.". That sits independent of observation. > Religions include all sorts of truth That was about things like mediation, fasting, etc. being real effective principals. > > I'd say similar to math. > Math is based on logic, Math does not require faith. Religion is not Math. It depends on your religion I guess. The religion I practice describes a God with some constraints (if he broke those constraints, then he wouldn't be God). And from these contraints (axioms), various doctrines and results fall out logically. And they're coherent. And you can take the first principals and combine them in various ways to arrive at the same consistent conclusions. So that's why I say it's like math - the internal consistency, and the ability to logically derive more stuff without meeting contradictions. > > religion is pretty analogus to anecdotes. Not widely generalized, and can often lead to wrong conclusions. But doeant definitely lead to wrong conclusions. > Either you did not proofread yourself or you really have abandoned logic and coherent thoughts completely. If a premise is false, then conclusions based on those same premises can only lead you to the wrong conclusion. I think this goes back to my interpretation of truth, so a small example to illustrate what I mean. A buddhist can practice meditation because of their religion. If Buddhism is wrong, that doesn't logically mean practicing meditation is silly, wrong or ineffective. > > I personally belong to a religion which encourages experimentation > I dont think so. If that was true we would not be having this conversation. > Therefore experimentation in the realm of religion is not possible as you would inevitably come to a point where logic would tell you that something is not true but your religion says it is or vice versa. You're using some bad logic here. You're starting with "All religion is false" as a the starting point to arrive at the conclusion of "your religion is false". I'm here because I have applied logic. I have experimented with my religion, and my experimentation has brought me to where I am. I have found it to bless my life as and not contradict other sources of knowledge. I have found my religion to be a better, more reliable source of truth than "science" though. Science gets us iteratively closer to truths, not doubt, but the result of a scientific experiment never gives us absolute truth. The scientific method is about disproving things. It ultimately moves us from one imperfect model to a better but still imperfect model. > If a premise is false, then conclusions based on those same premises can only lead you to the wrong conclusion. Wrong - that's actually a false premise, an innocuous one at that, but at least easily disprovable. Proof by contradiction: 1) Suppose that x = -1 (i.e. true premise) 2) Then a false premise is x = 1 (i.e. contradicts the true premise) 3) From the false premise, conclude x^2 = 1 4) That's correct though, contradicting your statement of "false premises can only lead to wrong conclusions". ... That's pretty much the entire point of my post - false premises don't always lead to false conclusions, and if you think false premises preclude any conclusions built upon them from being true through other logical means, then you're throwing out the baby with the bath water.