313

Originally posted by RJHinds
I understand the difference between laws and theories.
Laws tell us what happens. (It is true).
Theories speculate on how and why it might happen. (It may be true or false).

For example: Laws tell us the heavens and Earth happened because they exist.
Laws tell us that humans happened because they exist. (That is true).

Theories speculate on how ...[text shortened]... heory.
Abiogenesis and evolution are the false theories.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! 😏

You clearly did not know since you posited newton's 'laws of gravity' as proven (which they are not) against evolution.

Maybe now we have clarified it for you (again), you won't make that mistake (again).

But I won't be putting any bets on it.

--- Penguin.

Oh and by the way, 'special creation' is not a theory in the scientific sense because it is not falsifiable.

Originally posted by black beetle
I will surely not disappear in the cloud of the superstitious belief that objectivity is possible for the time being; and methinks that solipsism is not by my side but by yours, because your thesis is that the reality you perceive is separated from your own consciousness and that it exists as if it were identical to its mapping of yours, a mapping that ...[text shortened]... el up to it, kindly please feel free to prove here or at another thread that your thesis holds😵

Would you like to know what I actually think or make it up?


I have not said any of the stuff you just said after the words 'your thesis'.

Even if it were my position you would still be assuming that I held a position and not asking to find out.

I may or may not feel like getting into a philosophical debate with you but that will really depend on
whether or not you are going to wait to hear my position before attempting to trash it.

Originally posted by black beetle
I mean that objectivity is not existent as if there were a reality out there that can be conceived the same way by all the sentient beings, as our googlefudge insists. I argue that what is meant with the term "objectivity" is merely the consensus of our collective subjectivity as regards either a specific falsifiable theory of reality that can be evalua ...[text shortened]... ures that must be followed during its evaluation, or the validation of an orthogonal event
😵

Big cloud of solipsism.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Would you like to know what I actually think or make it up?


I have not said any of the stuff you just said after the words 'your thesis'.

Even if it were my position you would still be assuming that I held a position and not asking to find out.

I may or may not feel like getting into a philosophical debate with you but that will really depend on
whether or not you are going to wait to hear my position before attempting to trash it.

I don't want to trash your position but to establish a consensus with you as regards whether objectivity holds or not. I give time solely on debates with persons I respect.


Earlier at this thread you said: “There can be but one truth (or set of truth) about the reality we live in.”

Well, kindly please prove it;


You said: “Out of the infinite possible options for what that truth might be the only way of telling is by testing ideas against reality to see which stand up to scrutiny and which don't.”

Methinks testing is a product of our evaluation of a causal field, an evaluation we undergo according to specific prerequisites. No prerequisites, no testing.


You said: “No religion does this. But science does.”

I think that both religions and science are based on axioms and I beleive that their products are accurate or false assumptions according to specific contexts. The main difference is that religions are not falsifiable.


You said: “Science is the only known way of objectively testing and verifying which ideas closest match the reality we live in and thus the only path to discovering the truth about the reality we live in.”

We may all of us with good eyesight conceive the existence of the red colour of that Ferrari and evaluate it as “red”, but “red” is merely a projection of our mind and not the “objective reality”. Also, when it comes to the “ideas that closest match the reality we live in”, in the realm of the relative truths we remain; it seems to me that all we are left with is conventional truth that consists in agreement with commonly accepted practices and conventions
😵

Originally posted by googlefudge
Big cloud of solipsism.

You argue about "a way things really are" and you beleive I am a solipsist!

Well, I say that the scientific (and every other) way of investigating the "way things really are" is inextricably bound up with the linguistic and conceptual framework we happen to employ. If you disagree, shoot; and let me know where exactly "objectivity" is to be found
😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why would you think that? I am fairly sure the OP does not say that nor imply it. Why the strawman? Do you have no defence for what is actually contained in the OP?

This is what the OP said:

There are at least 313 religions in the US. If you believe in one of them, then you think the other 312 are wrong. An atheist thinks all 313 are wrong. "Who is more likely to be correct? If you still think only yours is correct don't you think you are rather presumptuous?

My response was neither a strawman, nor an unreasonable deduction: Simply stated, (to paraphrase the OP) if YOU feel that a specific position is the right one, and 312 (or whatever many) persons have 312 other positions, why should you then be able to deduce that all 313 are wrong? The logic escapes me.

C'mon, I know you always take pains to take an opposite view to everything, but even you should be able to see the fallacy in this. For example, it may well be that the answer is that all (or some) are partially wrong and partially correct.

Not that I need to DEFEND anything (and I have no wish whatsoever to do so), I still feel my response is a valid one to this OP.

Originally posted by 667joe
There are at least 313 religions in the US. If you believe in one of them, then you think the other 312 are wrong. An atheist thinks all 313 are wrong. "Who is more likely to be correct? If you still think only yours is correct don't you think you are rather presumptuous?

most of those religions have much in common and only differ in what they name their figurehead and what to eat or not to eat on fridays.

Originally posted by CalJust
My response was neither a strawman, nor an unreasonable deduction: Simply stated, (to paraphrase the OP) if YOU feel that a specific position is the right one, and 312 (or whatever many) persons have 312 other positions, why should you then be able to deduce that all 313 are wrong? The logic escapes me.

Having re-read your post, it appears I may have misunderstood you, if so I apologize.

Are you arguing:
1. That more than one position may be right?
2. That the OP claims that if there are 313 then they are necessarily all wrong?
I thought you were claiming 2. which is not true, whereas on re-reading your post I think you may be claiming 1.

C'mon, I know you always take pains to take an opposite view to everything, but even you should be able to see the fallacy in this. For example, it may well be that the answer is that all (or some) are partially wrong and partially correct.
I agree. However at least some religions hold as their main tenets, claims that are completely irreconcilable with other religions. But you are right that even if a religion has most of its claims completely false, it does not follow that all its claims are false.

But the OP still has a valid point: ie that there are many conflicting beliefs out there (and if we break religions down into their various claims the numbers are much higher than 313), and all of us dismiss as false the vast majority of these beliefs. So the question being asked, is given no information regarding the validity of a particular belief, who is more likely to be correct, someone who dismisses all of them, or someone who dismisses all but a few? But more importantly, it is asking aren't you presumptuous for thinking your beliefs are correct?
What it does not discuss is the fact that most people do have reasons for believing certain beliefs over others and the OP should just cause them to reconsider the validity of these reasons (as everyone else with conflicting beliefs presumably has similar reasons, suggesting that the reasoning is faulty).

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
most of those religions have much in common and only differ in what they name their figurehead and what to eat or not to eat on fridays.

People have shed blood over those pesky details!

Originally posted by 667joe
People have shed blood over those pesky details!

people have shed blood over being french or not.
people have shed blood over who is the prettiest actress or who was the better football player


should we ban football because hooligans get into fights over whose team has the better history? or is it the hooligans' fault and not the sport?


who is at fault here? the religion(or any philosophical system) or the moronic humans perverting it?

Originally posted by googlefudge
There can be but one truth (or set of truth) about the reality we live in.

Out of the infinite possible options for what that truth might be the only way of telling is
by testing ideas against reality to see which stand up to scrutiny and which don't.

No religion does this.

But science does.

Science is the only known way of objectively test ...[text shortened]... lity we live in and thus the only path to discovering the truth about the reality we live
in.

Your statements are dishonest.

Any person can look in any direction and see that intelligent deign is in all places at all times.

Cheating atheistic science does not accepts this.

They are dishonest.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
people have shed blood over being french or not.
people have shed blood over who is the prettiest actress or who was the better football player


should we ban football because hooligans get into fights over whose team has the better history? or is it the hooligans' fault and not the sport?


who is at fault here? the religion(or any philosophical system) or the moronic humans perverting it?

You are not elevating glamor or football, but rather lowering the value of religion(rightfully) to their level!

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
who is at fault here? the religion(or any philosophical system) or the moronic humans perverting it?

The religions only exist because of the moronic humans who created them and spread them and maintain them. That religions as an idea/philosophy invariably result in moronic humans doing undesirable things is undeniable. It is not so much a question of 'who is at fault' as if one can play a blame game with an object, but more a question of whether we would be better off without them.
That you claim that the bad stuff is a 'perversion' suggests the existence of an unperverted or more desirable religion - which is not the case.

Originally posted by twhitehead

So the question being asked, is given no information regarding the validity of a particular belief, who is more likely to be correct, someone who dismisses all of them, or someone who dismisses all but a few?

Neither - there is no way of telling. Too many unknowns...

But more importantly, it is asking aren't you presumptuous for thinking your beliefs are correct?

Finally you got it - yes, THIS is what i am getting at.

Even in politics (which is just another religion after all!) if I know that there are people willing to defend an idea to the death which I am totally convinced is wrong, then that should at least give me cause to ponder as to WHY that particular idea is held, and maybe question whether I am not perhaps missing something myself!

Admittedly, this is not a habit very common on RHP.

What it does not discuss is the fact that most people do have reasons for believing certain beliefs over others and the OP should just cause them to reconsider the validity of these reasons (as everyone else with conflicting beliefs presumably has similar reasons, suggesting that the reasoning is faulty).

Exactly.

At last we agree on something after all.

😀

Originally posted by twhitehead
The religions only exist because of the moronic humans who created them and spread them and maintain them. That religions as an idea/philosophy invariably result in moronic humans doing undesirable things is undeniable. It is not so much a question of 'who is at fault' as if one can play a blame game with an object, but more a question of whether we would ...[text shortened]... suggests the existence of an unperverted or more desirable religion - which is not the case.

Have you checked how many OPINIONS you just espoused??

With refernce to our discussion above, have YOU ever considered that, in the light of the many other opinions contrary to yours, whether maybe, just maybe, yours are not that watertight either??

😉