Is being wrong proof?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-12-2014, 07:07 AM
RE: Is being wrong proof?
(06-12-2014 12:41 AM)Pointwithinacircle Wrote:  But, is proving religion wrong sufficient proof to say that god does not exist?

No, but it sure doesn't demonstrate that he does. If no religion shows that then something else would be needed.

Quote:In order to say that god does not exist because religion is wrong

Since that's not what atheists generally say there's no problem here. You've set up a strawman argument about atheism.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
06-12-2014, 07:26 AM
RE: Is being wrong proof?
(06-12-2014 12:41 AM)Pointwithinacircle Wrote:  The skill of finding holes in religion is pretty easy to learn. Religion is not logical. Much of it is not historically correct. And even within a single religion one can find plenty of contradictory statements and claims. And that is without even looking at the contradictory claims of differing religions as they compete with each other. But, is proving religion wrong sufficient proof to say that god does not exist?

I realize that some of you may argue that religion is the only place that one can learn about god, but that is not exactly true. Sure, religions are like McDonalds. They are there on a daily basis trying to push their particular brand of what's good for you down your throat. But there are ways to understand mysticism other than through religion.

In order to say that god does not exist because religion is wrong, you have to concede that religion has described god correctly, but that the thing described has no real existence. Are you really prepared to say that the religious description is correct?

Showing that a religion or even all religions are wrong does not disprove the existence of some god or gods.

We can show that the gods described by religions contradict real-world evidence or are even self-contradictory. So it is just those gods that don't exist.

It's a little difficult to disprove an undescribed god. Dodgy

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
06-12-2014, 07:32 AM
RE: Is being wrong proof?
Another gnostic atheist. Thumbsup

(06-12-2014 12:41 AM)Pointwithinacircle Wrote:  Are you really prepared to say that the religious description is correct?

That's not my argument, it's their argument.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
06-12-2014, 08:19 AM
RE: Is being wrong proof?
(06-12-2014 12:41 AM)Pointwithinacircle Wrote:  The skill of finding holes in religion is pretty easy to learn. Religion is not logical. Much of it is not historically correct. And even within a single religion one can find plenty of contradictory statements and claims. And that is without even looking at the contradictory claims of differing religions as they compete with each other. But, is proving religion wrong sufficient proof to say that god does not exist?

No, as you mention, there's a difference between religion and god. But as others have already said, most of us don't claim that god doesn't exist. We just don't believe.

What it does demonstrate is that humans are pretty damned bad at finding god. Of the roughly 100 billion of us that have ever lived, every last one that did discover god either vanished into obscurity or bolloxed it up. That bodes poorly for my chances of success.

Rather than waste my efforts seeking out a deity that may well not exist and appears to be incomprehensible if it does, I chose to spent my energies living a good life knowing that at the very least I haven't been led astray by some misguided religion.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
06-12-2014, 01:28 PM
RE: Is being wrong proof?
(06-12-2014 01:41 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  So what you are saying Point, is that god may exist but is not capable of communicating its message effectively... or doesn't care to communicate its message effectively? Could you describe your god hypothesis in more detail?

I would not say that god is incapable. I would compare god to a library full of books written in Chinese. The books are capable of communicating information. The breakdown occurs because I have not learned how to correctly interpret the symbols the books present to me.

Religion is like a guy standing there claiming to know Chinese and telling me that all I need to do is listen to him. It is not logical to discount all the books in the library just because I can prove that the guy has made mistakes in his interpretations.

And finally, What happens if I determine to learn Chinese so I can read the books for myself? I might be presented with a Chinese character and learn that it denotes "female biological parent"; it means mother. Yet, if I lived in China for years I might see a man walk up to an unfamiliar elderly woman at an intersection and say "let me help you across the street mother"; or hear someone say philosophically "the earth is our mother". It would take years of cultural immersion to understand the depth of connotations in a single word. no, I do not think that god is incapable. I think I am am unskilled listener.

I hope I was able to offer you some explanation of my perspective.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2014, 01:35 PM
RE: Is being wrong proof?
(06-12-2014 01:28 PM)Pointwithinacircle Wrote:  I would not say that god is incapable. I would compare god to a library full of books written in Chinese. The books are capable of communicating information. The breakdown occurs because I have not learned how to correctly interpret the symbols the books present to me.

Religion is like a guy standing there claiming to know Chinese and telling me that all I need to do is listen to him. It is not logical to discount all the books in the library just because I can prove that the guy has made mistakes in his interpretations.

And finally, What happens if I determine to learn Chinese so I can read the books for myself? I might be presented with a Chinese character and learn that it denotes "female biological parent"; it means mother. Yet, if I lived in China for years I might see a man walk up to an unfamiliar elderly woman at an intersection and say "let me help you across the street mother"; or hear someone say philosophically "the earth is our mother". It would take years of cultural immersion to understand the depth of connotations in a single word. no, I do not think that god is incapable. I think I am am unskilled listener.

I hope I was able to offer you some explanation of my perspective.

You did, but it makes no sense. At all.
You made up your definition and expect other to buy into it ? If a god is a god, it's perfectly capable of making itself known or recognized. What possible motive would one have for making it "tricky" to know it ?

How do you KNOW that what you INTERPRET to be "Chinese" really IS a god. Implicitly, you're STILLl using an incoherent presupposition to validate your "findings". Maybe it's just crap ?

You have not defined what a "god" is, or how that is even a coherent concept.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2014, 01:58 PM
RE: Is being wrong proof?
(06-12-2014 01:28 PM)Pointwithinacircle Wrote:  I would compare god to a library full of books written in Chinese.

Your analogy falls apart because you're comparing an author or authors and a reader of roughly the same intellect. Given enough time and incentive, anybody could learn to read Chinese with enough fluency to get the better part of the meaning out of those books. Despite countless lifetimes wasted in the effort, no religion or individual has managed to get god right, or even demonstrate that one exists.

It's more like there's an ant in the server room. No matter how hard it tries, the ant will never understand that there's even information on the hard drives, much less how to access it. The ant can make up some foolishness about the great god of blinky lights and whirring fans that is its Creator or it can follow the scent trails leading to the lunch room and the crumbs dropped by the techs.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
06-12-2014, 02:29 PM
RE: Is being wrong proof?
(06-12-2014 01:28 PM)Pointwithinacircle Wrote:  I would not say that god is incapable. I would compare god to a library full of books written in Chinese.


什么?

(06-12-2014 01:28 PM)Pointwithinacircle Wrote:  And finally, What happens if I determine to learn Chinese so I can read the books for myself? I might be presented with a Chinese character and learn that it denotes "female biological parent"; it means mother. Yet, if I lived in China for years I might see a man walk up to an unfamiliar elderly woman at an intersection and say "let me help you across the street mother"; or hear someone say philosophically "the earth is our mother". It would take years of cultural immersion to understand the depth of connotations in a single word.

You do not need to understand the entire depth of connotations for each word in a language in order to comfortably grasp the meaning, literal and not, of a discourse in that same language. Also, many things are quick to learn with the right tools, like a dictionary.

I'm not sure your analogy works well here.

孤独 - The Out Crowd
Life is a flash of light between two eternities of darkness.
[Image: Schermata%202014-10-24%20alle%2012.39.01.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2014, 03:13 PM
RE: Is being wrong proof?
(06-12-2014 01:28 PM)Pointwithinacircle Wrote:  I would compare god to a library full of books written in Chinese.

Now that is one of the oddest definitions of god I've seen. I see your point though, but all claims of god are non-falsifiable. If a god(s) are incomprehensible then it's a largely futile task trying to comprehend it.

But here's my attempt:

(1) If an evil god exists, then there would be pointless suffering.
(2) There is pointless suffering.
(3) Therefore, an evil god does exist.

And I'll support this with these facts:

1. All living beings die
2. All living beings experience suffering in their lives.

Great, we're screwed! Big Grin

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2014, 03:55 PM
RE: Is being wrong proof?
God is like Santa Claus it only exist as long as you believe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: