4 ms·

"all it really means is the point is undecidable" Undecidable? You're kidding right? It's "decidable" all right, by any rational person, just like whether or n

by sho 17y ago

"all it really means is the point is undecidable" Undecidable? You're kidding right? It's "decidable" all right, by any rational person, just like whether or not the tooth fairy exists is "decidable". Look, here's religion in a nutshell. Religion: 1. Makes a great many claims about events known to be physically impossible 2. Offers no evidence whatsoever for those claims 3. Is therefore total nonsense until (2) is convincingly rectified 4. Therefore anyone believing it is either brainwashed or stupid or both It's as simple as that, really.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago
So if I told you I was the tooth fairy, would that mean that you were wrong all this time? What if I confided in you that I was God? I get it. You would subject me to scientific tests and logic to "prove" whether or not I fit into some label that has about as many meanings as there are people who believe in the tooth fairy. Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Since we know exactly what God is we can use the scientific method to disprove a negative. Of course. You're purposely cherry-picking your definition of God. That's at the heart of your fallacy -- some belief that there is this one definition of God that somehow you can come to terms with. There isn't. You've got a great argument about the self-inconsistencies of Christianity inside it's own system. That's the best one. Stick to that. Trying to come up with one straw man (or straw God) to discredit or disprove just makes you look intellectually dishonest. In my opinion, of course.
- sho 17y ago
  If you could convincingly demonstrate that you were the tooth fairy, for example by flying into the locked rooms of every little boy and girl in the world overnight looking for teeth, or just by displaying any supernatural ability whatsoever, then of course I'd admit I was wrong all this time. And I wouldn't mind being wrong, either, since I'd be getting the fricking Nobel Prize for turning all scientific knowledge to date upside down in an instant by discovering you. I have no idea what you mean by "cherry-picking" - I am going straight for the heart of the matter. Religion - all religion really, but Abrahamic in particular - is practically made of supernatural phenomenon. It's all impossible according to everything we know about the universe. No further discussion is required. I hate to repeat memes but when it comes to religion it's basically "pics or it didn't happen". Until you have some evidence - any evidence - you may as well be arguing that Harry Potter is real.
  - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
    "If you could convincingly demonstrate that you were the tooth fairy, for example by flying into the locked rooms of every little boy and girl in the world overnight looking for teeth, or just by displaying any supernatural ability whatsoever, then of course I'd admit I was wrong all this time." But you see you are proving my point. You are providing some definition of the tooth fairy that you then expect me to demonstrate. That's crazy. What if my definition of the tooth fairy is simply a kind father who slips a couple bucks under his kid's pillow on certain occasions? Do you see what I'm getting at? You're taking some attributes, that some people believe, about some possible entity beyond our understanding. Then you're trying to use logic and science with it. That doesn't seem so smart to me. There is a fine line between stories I make up to tell you and stories I tell you that you have no ability to verify. You might want to read that preceding sentence again. From the outside they look the same. There's no way for you to tell the difference.
    - sho 17y ago
      The bible, which if I understand it correctly is the basis of Christianity, makes claims which are unambiguously supernatural. Seas being parted, virgin birth, dead rising, pillars of salt, that kind of thing. All of these events are impossible and should be assumed to be fictional unless proven otherwise. Since you like to play with definitions so much, why don't you define "God" and give me something to shoot at, then? If you define him as a kindly middle aged father who is nice to his kids, then fine, no argument from me, except it doesn't have much to do with the character in the book. "There is a fine line between stories I make up to tell you and stories I tell you that you have no ability to verify." No there's not. There is no line at all! If there is no evidence, it didn't happen. "Then you're trying to use logic and science with it. That doesn't seem so smart to me." I guess that's where we'll have to differ.
      - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
        Sorry if I come across as playing with definitions. Words matter, and if you have one meaning and I have another, we're just going to talk past each other. A Christian, by definition, is one who follows Christ. The "Bible" as I guess you are using the term, is a collection of religious letters put together in the 3rd century out of dozens or hundreds of candidates. Fundamentalists think of the bible as a textbook. So do critics, except they think of it as a flawed textbook. More modern versions of Christianity view that Bible as largely allegorical. You can certainly be a Christian and not believe in the bible. Good grief, you can be a Christian and not believe in God. You could even be an atheist. But these are just simple facts that I would take as a starting point for discussion. The best I can tell, there is a universal core definition of God across religions which is something like "that which we are not able to understand". I can grok this, as throughout history there have been things we do not understand. Perhaps God will be by ex-wife: never could figure her out. So if you asked me for a definition, that's the one I'd give. Not some myth-overloaded product of hundreds of years of religious dogma. God is a belief that we do not know everything. At least to me. I find such a belief a critical part of being a mature intellectual. You're welcome to take shots at that definition. I'd like to hear your critique. I don't have any answers. The issue of God and all of the sub-issues has been debated for ages. Perhaps there is some new angle everybody else has missed. Who knows?
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

by sho 17y ago

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

So if I told you I was the tooth fairy, would that mean that you were wrong all this time? What if I confided in you that I was God? I get it. You would subject me to scientific tests and logic to "prove" whether or not I fit into some label that has about as many meanings as there are people who believe in the tooth fairy. Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Since we know exactly what God is we can use the scientific method to disprove a negative. Of course. You're purposely cherry-picking your definition of God. That's at the heart of your fallacy -- some belief that there is this one definition of God that somehow you can come to terms with. There isn't. You've got a great argument about the self-inconsistencies of Christianity inside it's own system. That's the best one. Stick to that. Trying to come up with one straw man (or straw God) to discredit or disprove just makes you look intellectually dishonest. In my opinion, of course.

sho 17y ago
If you could convincingly demonstrate that you were the tooth fairy, for example by flying into the locked rooms of every little boy and girl in the world overnight looking for teeth, or just by displaying any supernatural ability whatsoever, then of course I'd admit I was wrong all this time. And I wouldn't mind being wrong, either, since I'd be getting the fricking Nobel Prize for turning all scientific knowledge to date upside down in an instant by discovering you. I have no idea what you mean by "cherry-picking" - I am going straight for the heart of the matter. Religion - all religion really, but Abrahamic in particular - is practically made of supernatural phenomenon. It's all impossible according to everything we know about the universe. No further discussion is required. I hate to repeat memes but when it comes to religion it's basically "pics or it didn't happen". Until you have some evidence - any evidence - you may as well be arguing that Harry Potter is real.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  "If you could convincingly demonstrate that you were the tooth fairy, for example by flying into the locked rooms of every little boy and girl in the world overnight looking for teeth, or just by displaying any supernatural ability whatsoever, then of course I'd admit I was wrong all this time." But you see you are proving my point. You are providing some definition of the tooth fairy that you then expect me to demonstrate. That's crazy. What if my definition of the tooth fairy is simply a kind father who slips a couple bucks under his kid's pillow on certain occasions? Do you see what I'm getting at? You're taking some attributes, that some people believe, about some possible entity beyond our understanding. Then you're trying to use logic and science with it. That doesn't seem so smart to me. There is a fine line between stories I make up to tell you and stories I tell you that you have no ability to verify. You might want to read that preceding sentence again. From the outside they look the same. There's no way for you to tell the difference.
  - sho 17y ago
    The bible, which if I understand it correctly is the basis of Christianity, makes claims which are unambiguously supernatural. Seas being parted, virgin birth, dead rising, pillars of salt, that kind of thing. All of these events are impossible and should be assumed to be fictional unless proven otherwise. Since you like to play with definitions so much, why don't you define "God" and give me something to shoot at, then? If you define him as a kindly middle aged father who is nice to his kids, then fine, no argument from me, except it doesn't have much to do with the character in the book. "There is a fine line between stories I make up to tell you and stories I tell you that you have no ability to verify." No there's not. There is no line at all! If there is no evidence, it didn't happen. "Then you're trying to use logic and science with it. That doesn't seem so smart to me." I guess that's where we'll have to differ.
    - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
      Sorry if I come across as playing with definitions. Words matter, and if you have one meaning and I have another, we're just going to talk past each other. A Christian, by definition, is one who follows Christ. The "Bible" as I guess you are using the term, is a collection of religious letters put together in the 3rd century out of dozens or hundreds of candidates. Fundamentalists think of the bible as a textbook. So do critics, except they think of it as a flawed textbook. More modern versions of Christianity view that Bible as largely allegorical. You can certainly be a Christian and not believe in the bible. Good grief, you can be a Christian and not believe in God. You could even be an atheist. But these are just simple facts that I would take as a starting point for discussion. The best I can tell, there is a universal core definition of God across religions which is something like "that which we are not able to understand". I can grok this, as throughout history there have been things we do not understand. Perhaps God will be by ex-wife: never could figure her out. So if you asked me for a definition, that's the one I'd give. Not some myth-overloaded product of hundreds of years of religious dogma. God is a belief that we do not know everything. At least to me. I find such a belief a critical part of being a mature intellectual. You're welcome to take shots at that definition. I'd like to hear your critique. I don't have any answers. The issue of God and all of the sub-issues has been debated for ages. Perhaps there is some new angle everybody else has missed. Who knows?

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]