JEST2ASK

Funny to mention smoke and mirrors when advocating how religion is more reliable than science.
Science can definitely tells us about the mechanism of speech and give us clues as how it (& language)developed. Whereas Religion only says Yep that the way it is God wanted it that way. The tower of Babel is just such a wonderful example.

Sorry but I detect a purposeful attempt to misdirect attention (can you say Strawman) away from real issues.

Science at least keeps a record of how and why ideas/theories change.

Religion - Oh that's not what Jesus really meant ... Oh that part is not to be taken literal .... Oh we are not changing God's word ... you see God gradually reveals to selected individuals more of the truth. :boohoo: :boohoo: Whatever



Albert I think you know (obviously more than I do) that many Theists accept evolution as a tool / mechanism by which God works. Sorry but I really dobut your assement of the basis for most of your current knowledge (??? Osmosis ??? Yeah right )

Respectfully (but not buying)

JEST2ASK

True That ... Which is actually a noble purpose if only they would admit it ..... maybe they need a disclaimer statement .... Yes we distort reality but it is for your own good.

Or Send us your money and we will pray for you ..... so you can continuing sending us money ... Sorry just my cynical side getting out of hand.

Amos

. . . And each generation they will change while the Word of God will never change. Notice, that the word of God is not exactly what you think it reads.

Albert Cipriani

Jobar:
At the end of the film “Reds,” a delirious Warren Betty, tossing and turning on his deathbed, keeps asking if it’s Christmas yet. He had promised his love (Dianne Keaton) that he’d be home to her by Christmas. She’s there by his side, but he’s too out of it to know. All he can focus on is keeping his promise to be home to her before Christmas. So she lies.

Christmas had passed, but Keaton tells her lover that it’s not Christmas yet. His agitation stops. He experiences the eye of the hurricane before death whisks him away.

She’d told him a “comforting lie.” By Jobar’s objective lights, that must have been a dark day in their relationship. By my subjective lights, she performed a religious act, what Catholics call a “corporal work of mercy.”

Point is, in matters that cannot be known, such as what happens after death, there is no such thing as lies. Lies are operative only where truths may be found out. So the choice we have is not between religion’s “comforting lies” versus science’s “uncomfortable facts,” but between comforting opinions versus uncomfortable opinions. Choose wisely. – Albert the Traditional Catholic 2/8/03
My Religious Philosophy List

Amos

Sounds like you've been 'had.'

JEST2ASK

I agree ... but have yet found a reliable source to convince me what is "THE WORD OF GOD"

Amos

OK, and that is a fair statement. To this I say that you will never find it but it must find you.

Philosoft

Untrue. While not proof, it is most certainly evidence. People rarely do things like "lying" randomly or at chance levels. People also tend to predict future behaviors by observing and remembering past behaviors. If historically 90% of the claims person P makes are lies, a strong case can be made that the belief 'the next thing P says will be a lie' is a reasonable belief.

More similar to the case of Santa v. God, if P's claim, "Santa is X, Y and Z" is a lie because, "beings who are X, Y and Z do not exist," it is reasonable to consider the claim "God is X, Y and Z" suspect as well.

Albert, put those goalposts back where they were. We're talking about beliefs, not formal logical arguments. Generalizations are not always practically useless, as your inducted belief that the sun will rise tomorrow testifies to.

Puh-leez. It's unavoidable. The human brain is not capable of assessing the logical viability of every conceivable induction.
This is a false analogy. Human beliefs have an a priori truth probability of .5 because there are only two possible outcomes, but that's where the similarity ends. Because the set of factors that affect the truth of human beliefs is sufficiently large and unpredictable, beliefs are extremely unlikely to be true at a 50% rate, a posteriori. In addition, since an individual is very likely to judge the truth or falsity of another's statements or beliefs based almost entirely on the track-record of only that individual (indeed, it seems biology has pretty much determined it be done this way), any admonition that the process is "illogical" is meaningless. The process hasn't the capability to be 100% logical in every case.

openeyes

I guessing Sab would've arrived at a disbelief in "God" whether or not he had ever heard of Santa. But since he did have the "Santa" experience, he, like many other questioners, made the analogy. It seems to independently strike a lot of atheists as apt.

A few words on trust, from my experience, not a "logic" text-- if religious parents would allow their children to proceed without a faith in a god if a child concluded that that was a more useful way of viewing the world, this distrust in other areas would probably not develop. Most of us were not given that allowance, either by our parents or American society in general. Once we questioned the concept of god and find it unsubstantiated, for most of us more things in life fall into place than out (as with finding out the truth about Santa). Since that very reasonable (in our minds) point of view isn't accepted by many, we tend to question other conclusions made by believers. I think it's a prudent way to live.

It doesn't make most of us sad, so don't feel bad for us.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Philosoft,
My demonstration of Sab’s illogical steps in arriving here as an atheist should make you appreciative, not make you try to muzzle me by saying:
You can talk about whatever you want to talk about in another thread. In this thread, I’m talking about what Sab is talking about. Hear again what he’s talking about:
You see? He’s talking about logic. How can you tell me to stop being logical? I thought atheists prided themselves in being logical and it was us theists that were always trying to shift the argument into the swamps of beliefs, speculation, or horror of horrors, faith alone.

Philosoft says:
Evidence for what? Evidence for the proposition you are trying to prove!? Congratulations, you’ve just committed the petitio principii fallacy. Your evidence assumes your conclusion.

Ignoring the falacious way in which you've attempted to frame your argument, your argument that induction has any place in logic is simply false. Induction is better thought of as a form of enumeration than as a form of reasoning. It has no middle term, but merely enumerates a necessarily incomplete set of particulars upon which it infers a conclusion that has no logical validity.

For example, the person who walks through my classroom door is a student. So are the next 30 persons. Ergo, this classroom is holding 30 students. The moment I inductively infer from this that the next person who walks through my classroom door will be a student, I’ve erred. This is exactly what Sab has done. But his illogical inference isn’t even based upon 30 enumerations. It’s based upon a single “enumeration.” His parents lied about the existence of Santa Claus, ergo, they lied about the existence of God. This is simply not logical.

Sab claims that his belief in God did not seem logical. But I’ve demonstrated that the inductive basis for his disbelief in God is what is illogical. You, as a lover of truth and clear thinking should applaud the service I’ve rendered him instead of telling me to stop being logical with him. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic 2/9/03
My Religious Philosophy List