Proof of logic

[JetLeg]

Useless distinction. "Important" is relative.

Huh?

If a person testifies that something is important to him, it usually is.

If a person puts a large part of his time to his religion, probably it is important to him.

[JetLeg]

Exactly wrong. I say that if a certain form of argument can lead from a true premise to a false conclusion, then it is always fallacious. That's because fallacy means "a form of argument that can lead from a true premise to a false conclusion." Fallaciouis arguments can have true conclusions, but only by chance, since the truth or falsity of the conclusion is more or less independent of the truth of the premises.

Furthermore, I will also state that if a certain form of argument can lead from a true premise to a false conlcusion, then that argument is always unreliable, which means we cannot rely on it as a method of obtaining truth.


I agree, thank you.




Yes, and that's another fallacy -- "special pleading" -- because it can lead from true premises to false conclusions. And, as a fallacy, it's unreliable and can be safely disregarded by a rational observer.


Can you give an example why is this type of reasoning wrong?
You can use some reasoning in math, that you cannot use in science for example. So I suggested the same with imm-beings versus m-beings.

[slingblade]

You can use some reasoning in math, that you cannot use in science for example.

Like what? Give an example, please, of reasoning that is used in math that can't be used in science, or vice-versa.

[JetLeg]

Like what? Give an example, please, of reasoning that is used in math that can't be used in science, or vice-versa.

Expiriments have no validity in math.

And math has axioms, unlike science, which tries to function without them.

[drkitten]

Can you give an example why is this type of reasoning wrong?

Sure. Here's an example from nizkor.org (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html)

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
2. Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
3. Therefore A is exempt from S.

The person committing Special Pleading is claiming that he is exempt from certain principles or standards yet he provides no good reason for his exemption. That this sort of reasoning is fallacious is shown by the following extreme example:

1. Barbara accepts that all murderers should be punished for their crimes.
2. Although she murdered Bill, Barbara claims she is an exception because she really would not like going to prison.
3. Therefore, the standard of punishing murderers should not be applied to her.

This is obviously a blatant case of special pleading. Since no one likes going to prison, this cannot justify the claim that Barbara alone should be exempt from punishment.

Similary, the idea that ordinary rules of logic apply to everything except your particular pet woo is a blatant case of special pleading. You cannot justify the claim that immaterial beings are exempt from the rules of logic.

ETA: a more declarative version would be

A: All cats have four legs
B: Except for my cat, Fluffy
C: My cat, Fluffy, has only three legs.

It is literally impossible for statements A and C to be true at the same time; if A is ttrue, then C must be false. Therefore, an argument by special pleading can lead from a true premise to a false conclusion -- and is therefore fallacious.

[slingblade]

ETA: a more declarative version would be

A: All cats have four legs
B: Except for my cat, Fluffy
C: My cat, Fluffy, has only three legs.

It is literally impossible for statements A and C to be true at the same time; if A is ttrue, then C must be false. Therefore, an argument by special pleading can lead from a true premise to a false conclusion -- and is therefore fallacious.


Sorry to butt in, but I'm not sure that C is a conclusion. I can't rationally insert a "therefore." They all seem to be premises, and B is an iffy premise at best. But then, on second thought, you may have meant to create three premises. If so, I apologize for my misunderstanding.

If it's all right, though, I'd like to make a comment or two about it.

A. All cats have four legs.
B. My cat, Fluffy, has three legs.

C: Therefore, fluffy is not a cat.

The problem is, of course, the wording of A. As worded, it is not entirely a true premise, though that's what we want, for demonstration.

A. As defined, a cat is an animal with four legs.
B. My cat has three legs.

C. Therefore, mine is not a cat.

Now then. Those true premises do not lead to that conclusion, because we can think of exceptions to A, even though, as stated, A is true.
The argument, therefore, is fallacious. It's flawed.


Sorry if I'm being a butthead. :)

[JetLeg]

Sure. Here's an example from nizkor.org (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html)


Similary, the idea that ordinary rules of logic apply to everything except your particular pet woo is a blatant case of special pleading. You cannot justify the claim that immaterial beings are exempt from the rules of logic.

ETA: a more declarative version would be

A: All cats have four legs
B: Except for my cat, Fluffy
C: My cat, Fluffy, has only three legs.

It is literally impossible for statements A and C to be true at the same time; if A is ttrue, then C must be false. Therefore, an argument by special pleading can lead from a true premise to a false conclusion -- and is therefore fallacious.

Is C a conclusion in your example? The specific amount of legs Fluffy has is not related to anything.

A better example would be

A: All cats have four legs.
B: Except for my cat, Fluffy.
C: Therefore my cat, Fluffy can have less than four legs.

Is that what you mean?

[JetLeg]

A. As defined, a cat is an animal with four legs.
B. My cat has three legs.

C. Therefore, mine is not a cat.

Now then. Those true premises do not lead to that conclusion, because we can think of exceptions to A, even though, as stated, A is true.
The argument, therefore, is fallacious. It's flawed.


Do you think that because A is true on one hand (when you don't think of the exceptions), but false on the other hand (when you think of cats that were in a car accidents), it contradicts the law of excluded middle?

[slingblade]

A is conditionally true, as indicated by the words "as defined." It admits that there are conditions in which not all living cats have 4 legs, but that the definition (the abstract, if you will) of the cat is that it is a 4-legged animal.

I think it's also a kind of oppositional truth, such that a cat is defined as "a 4-legged animal," i.e. a type, as opposed to those types of animals with two legs (like humans), six legs (like insects), and so on.

[drkitten]

Sorry to butt in, but I'm not sure that C is a conclusion. I can't rationally insert a "therefore."

Um,... yes, that's right. Given that it's a fallacious argument, I would be extremely surprised if you could.

The point is that if you have reason to accept that A is true, then you have no basis at all for accepting C. And similarly, if you have reason to believe C, then you have a direct counterexample to the potential truth of A.

"Special pleading" is an argument -- in the weakest possible sense of the term -- used to justify (again in the weakest possible sense of the term) holding two beliefs that even the speaker knows to be contradictory. If Barbara really feels that all murderers should be punished, without exception, then she herself must also face punishment. If she feels that her murder deserves some sort of special dispensation, then she must also accept that other murders might equally deserve dispensation. The fact that she does not, and continues to hold those opinions without adjustment is what makes it special pleading.

In this case, JetLag [i]knows (has admitted) that feelings are a lousy basis to assess truth. But somehow he wants to hold out that his feelings are somehow different. He knows that that things that violate the fundamental semantics of English are impossible -- but wants to hold out somehow that God is exempt from this general rule. He knows that no rational person would buy into a statement on the simple grounds that the statement cannot be proven false. But, again, he wants to hold out for a special exception for God.

Special pleading. And it's a fallacy for exactly the reason you outlined. Either A is an oversimplification (most cats, but not all, have four legs) and we should be able to find evidence of that, or C is simply untrue.

Absent any evidence that there is actually a reason to believe that some feelings are epistemologically sound, then a rational obserer would believe that no feelings -- including JetLag's -- are worth a half-cup of warm spit, epistemologically speaking.

[juryjone]

I have no formal training in logic, and it's taken me quite a while to get through this thread. However, I'd like to take a stab at the particular case of special pleading that JetLeg seems to be making here.

A: Logic applies to everything material, i.e., things that we know about.
B: God is immaterial and unknowable.
C: Therefore, logic does not apply to God.

The trouble comes with the premise A. A only talks about the material and knowable. It states nothing about any properties of that which is unknowable. So it is a fallacious argument to state that logic would necessarily have nothing to do with God.

How'd I do?

[JetLeg]

Um,... yes, that's right. Given that it's a fallacious argument, I would be extremely surprised if you could.

The point is that if you have reason to accept that A is true, then you have no basis at all for accepting C. And similarly, if you have reason to believe C, then you have a direct counterexample to the potential truth of A.

"Special pleading" is an argument -- in the weakest possible sense of the term -- used to justify (again in the weakest possible sense of the term) holding two beliefs that even the speaker knows to be contradictory. If Barbara really feels that all murderers should be punished, without exception, then she herself must also face punishment. If she feels that her murder deserves some sort of special dispensation, then she must also accept that other murders might equally deserve dispensation. The fact that she does not, and continues to hold those opinions without adjustment is what makes it special pleading.

In this case, JetLag [i]knows (has admitted) that feelings are a lousy basis to assess truth. But somehow he wants to hold out that his feelings are somehow different. He knows that that things that violate the fundamental semantics of English are impossible -- but wants to hold out somehow that God is exempt from this general rule. He knows that no rational person would buy into a statement on the simple grounds that the statement cannot be proven false. But, again, he wants to hold out for a special exception for God.

Special pleading. And it's a fallacy for exactly the reason you outlined. Either A is an oversimplification (most cats, but not all, have four legs) and we should be able to find evidence of that, or C is simply untrue.

Absent any evidence that there is actually a reason to believe that some feelings are epistemologically sound, then a rational obserer would believe that no feelings -- including JetLag's -- are worth a half-cup of warm spit, epistemologically speaking.

So you are saying that if I hold the feelings of other people not to be a reliable criteria, I have to find a good reason to exclude myself from it, and the burden is on me? A special pleading for you, is excluding myself without finding a good enough reason?


By the way, if I say "My feelings are more true than the feelings of others because I feel so", would that be circular logic?

[slingblade]

Do you have no clue how to teach yourself?

Or are you simply going to keep asking us to spoon-feed you a dollop of logic at a time? Which you will then ignore?

[JetLeg]

Um,... yes, that's right. Given that it's a fallacious argument, I would be extremely surprised if you could.

The point is that if you have reason to accept that A is true, then you have no basis at all for accepting C. And similarly, if you have reason to believe C, then you have a direct counterexample to the potential truth of A.

"Special pleading" is an argument -- in the weakest possible sense of the term -- used to justify (again in the weakest possible sense of the term) holding two beliefs that even the speaker knows to be contradictory. If Barbara really feels that all murderers should be punished, without exception, then she herself must also face punishment. If she feels that her murder deserves some sort of special dispensation, then she must also accept that other murders might equally deserve dispensation. The fact that she does not, and continues to hold those opinions without adjustment is what makes it special pleading.

In this case, JetLag [i]knows (has admitted) that feelings are a lousy basis to assess truth. But somehow he wants to hold out that his feelings are somehow different. He knows that that things that violate the fundamental semantics of English are impossible -- but wants to hold out somehow that God is exempt from this general rule. He knows that no rational person would buy into a statement on the simple grounds that the statement cannot be proven false. But, again, he wants to hold out for a special exception for God.

Special pleading. And it's a fallacy for exactly the reason you outlined. Either A is an oversimplification (most cats, but not all, have four legs) and we should be able to find evidence of that, or C is simply untrue.

Absent any evidence that there is actually a reason to believe that some feelings are epistemologically sound, then a rational obserer would believe that no feelings -- including JetLag's -- are worth a half-cup of warm spit, epistemologically speaking.

What you describe is simply shifting the burden of proof, when saying that a certain member of a group has different characteristics than the whole group.

But I am not sure that shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy actually.

[articulett]

What you describe is simply shifting the burden of proof, when saying that a certain member of a group has different characteristics than the whole group.

But I am not sure that shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy actually.

Again... a useless opinion...

You really must learn the difference between facts and everything else to have a discussion with the grown ups.

[Suggestologist]

A is conditionally true, as indicated by the words "as defined." It admits that there are conditions in which not all living cats have 4 legs, but that the definition (the abstract, if you will) of the cat is that it is a 4-legged animal.

I think it's also a kind of oppositional truth, such that a cat is defined as "a 4-legged animal," i.e. a type, as opposed to those types of animals with two legs (like humans), six legs (like insects), and so on.

Couldn't you make this conform to real-world conditions?

1. All healthy cats have exactly 4 legs. (premise)
2. My cat has exactly 3 legs. (attribute)
3. But, my cat is healthy. (special pleading)
4. OK, my cat would be healthy if he had one more leg. (hypothetical)

The premise conforms to how most people understand the term, "healthy".
If you accept 1., you cannot accept 3. without special pleading.
You need a "but", rather than a "therefore" to get from 1. to 3.

[slingblade]

Ohhh...okay! :) Thanks.

[JetLeg]

Again... a useless opinion...

You really must learn the difference between facts and everything else to have a discussion with the grown ups.

Well, why is it a fallacy?

If you assert it is a fallacy, then according to you-> the burden of proof is on you to prove that.

[Taffer]

Well, why is it a fallacy?

If you assert it is a fallacy, then according to you-> the burden of proof is on you to prove that.

You might like to read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shifting_the_burden_of_proof) wiki article.

[drkitten]

So you are saying that if I hold the feelings of other people not to be a reliable criteria, I have to find a good reason to exclude myself from it, and the burden is on me? A special pleading for you, is excluding myself without finding a good enough reason?


By the way, if I say "My feelings are more true than the feelings of others because I feel so", would that be circular logic?


Yes, and yes. And it's not "special pleading for me" -- it's the standard meaning of the term as used by philosophers since Plato or thereabout. Of course, when Plato used the term, he used it in Greek....

[JetLeg]

Yes, and yes. And it's not "special pleading for me" -- it's the standard meaning of the term as used by philosophers since Plato or thereabout. Of course, when Plato used the term, he used it in Greek....

So special pleading is a subcategory of shifting the burden of proof?

Anyway, does not it seem to you that the difference between falsifiable-unfalsifiable hypothesis, and material-immaterial beings is big enough so that proving a certain way of thinking for one of them does not prove it automatically for the other?

[Taffer]

So special pleading is a subcategory of shifting the burden of proof?

Anyway, does not it seem to you that the difference between falsifiable-unfalsifiable hypothesis, and material-immaterial beings is big enough so that proving a certain way of thinking for one of them does not prove it automatically for the other?

Logic is universal.

[drkitten]

So special pleading is a subcategory of shifting the burden of proof?

Only inasmuch as any invalid argument attempts to persuade me of a statement without sufficient grounds, and is therefore an attempt to shift the burden of proof. A simple "non-sequitor" would also be an attempt to shift the burden of proof in that loose sense.

"My socks are orange, therefore squirrels are messengers from God!"
"Huh? What does that have to do with anything?"
"Oh, yeah? Can you prove me wrong?"




Anyway, does not it seem to you that the difference between falsifiable-unfalsifiable hypothesis, and material-immaterial beings is big enough so that proving a certain way of thinking for one of them does not prove it automatically for the other?

I am rapidly running out of ways to say "no" politlely to you. No, it does not seem that way to me. It does not seem that way to any rational observer. No, no, no, no, no.

And even if it did -- that would still not matter. Because the simple fact that I cannot prove that the material world follows the same rules as the immaterial world, or the simple fact that I cannot prove that unfalsifiable hypotheses are subject to the same rules of logic as falsifiable ones does not -- in any way, shape, or form -- imply that the rules are different. That may be your most glaring fallacy yet, as it combines about three fallacies.

First, there's a false-dichotomy. Just because X cannot be proven to be true does not mean that X is false.

Second, it's an argument from ignorance. Just because I cannot prove something does not mean that it cannot be proven.

Third, it's another form of argument from ignorance. If we do not know whether or not the immaterial follows the same rules as the material, then we cannot know whether or not it follows different rules. You cannot then assert without evidence that the rules for it are different -- the best you can do is shut up at that point.

Three fallacies in one short paragraph. Even by your standards, that's rather impressive.

[rocketdodger]

Anyway, does not it seem to you that the difference between falsifiable-unfalsifiable hypothesis, and material-immaterial beings is big enough so that proving a certain way of thinking for one of them does not prove it automatically for the other?

It does seem that way, JetLeg, for beings that have different ways of thinking.

Unfortunately, we do not. As my earlier post to you explained, humans have no choice but to think logically because logic is nothing more than a formalization of the way we think.

[Belz...]

Huh?

If a person testifies that something is important to him, it usually is.

If a person puts a large part of his time to his religion, probably it is important to him.

My point was that disagreeing doesn't mean thinking you're superior. It just means you think you're right.

And to your first statement: people can lie.

[Belz...]

Again... a useless opinion...

You really must learn the difference between facts and everything else to have a discussion with the grown ups.

Ouch.

[Belz...]

Anyway, does not it seem to you that the difference between falsifiable-unfalsifiable hypothesis, and material-immaterial beings is big enough so that proving a certain way of thinking for one of them does not prove it automatically for the other?

Nope.

Even if I accepted the existence of a divine being, which I certainly do not, I could never, never, never, ever, ever, ever, ever concede that it can defy the rules of logic. The rules of logic simply stem from existence itself.

If something exists, it simply cannot NOT exist simultaneously. That's pretty much the basis of logic.

[Diarmuid]

Wow, like this thread, clears up some things.

Thanks

[Suggestologist]

Nope.

Even if I accepted the existence of a divine being, which I certainly do not, I could never, never, never, ever, ever, ever, ever concede that it can defy the rules of logic. The rules of logic simply stem from existence itself.

If something exists, it simply cannot NOT exist simultaneously. That's pretty much the basis of logic.

Right. The basis of logic is consistency.

A = A.

Special Pleading is a type of inconsistency.

[JetLeg]

And to your first statement: people can lie.

I don't think that people lie about their relationship with god, and the place religion takes in their lives.

[cyborg]

I don't think that people lie about their relationship with god, and the place religion takes in their lives.

How naive of you.

[Suggestologist]

I don't think that people lie about their relationship with god, and the place religion takes in their lives.

Then you are naive.

[slingblade]

I don't think that people lie about their relationship with god, and the place religion takes in their lives.

I'll introduce you to my ex, if you want to meet one.

[Belz...]

I don't think that people lie about their relationship with god, and the place religion takes in their lives.

The point is, they CAN lie, so why take their claims at face value ?

[drkitten]

I don't think that people lie about their relationship with god, and the place religion takes in their lives.

DIdn't we just have this discussion about "special pleading"?

Why do people lie about everything else except their relationship with God?

And, in fact, people do lie about their relationship with God. Look at how many criminals managed to mysteriously "find God" just before their sentencing hearing, only to lose Him again almost instantly when the judge still sentences them to five years. Look at how many people "find God" when it's time for a parole hearing.... For that matter, look at how many people "find God" when they want to get out of the Army and are filling out a conscientious objector form....

[rocketdodger]

I don't think that people lie about their relationship with god, and the place religion takes in their lives.

The fact that the leaders of the church, who above all know what the "punishment" for their "sins" will be, molest children at a rate orders of magnitude greater than the rest of the population is pretty strong evidence to the contrary.

[JetLeg]

DIdn't we just have this discussion about "special pleading"?

Why do people lie about everything else except their relationship with God?

And, in fact, people do lie about their relationship with God. Look at how many criminals managed to mysteriously "find God" just before their sentencing hearing, only to lose Him again almost instantly when the judge still sentences them to five years. Look at how many people "find God" when it's time for a parole hearing.... For that matter, look at how many people "find God" when they want to get out of the Army and are filling out a conscientious objector form....

I meant, lying not in a context in which they have a concrete benefit from it, like in the cases above. When believers are asked about the importance religion plays in their life, or about their religious experience, or about their mystical experiences, and not in court\army, but in a context of a research about religion, I expect them not to lie.

[cyborg]

I expect them not to lie.

I expect them to lie.

[JetLeg]

If something exists, it simply cannot NOT exist simultaneously. That's pretty much the basis of logic.

Uhm... Yes, I have to agree with this one.

[drkitten]

I meant, lying not in a context in which they have a concrete benefit from it, like in the cases above. When believers are asked about the importance religion plays in their life, or about their religious experience, or about their mystical experiences, and not in court\army, but in a context of a research about religion, I expect them not to lie.

Why? More accurately, how do you know that they aren't expecting a concrete benefit from it, even in a social context? Perhaps the woman hanging on your informant's arm is his wealthy fiancee and the deeply religious daughter of a preacher, who would be horrified if he were to claim anything other than a "personal relationship with God." She need not even be there, since if he's at all smart, he will recognize that the best way to keep a lie together is to continue to tell it even when she's not around (since gossip travels).

Social pressure (= conformity) is one of the biggest reasons that people lie. Given the tremendous amount of social importance placed on religion by those so inclined, my experience is that religion is among the most frequently lied-about topics.

[Belz...]

I meant, lying not in a context in which they have a concrete benefit from it, like in the cases above. When believers are asked about the importance religion plays in their life, or about their religious experience, or about their mystical experiences, and not in court\army, but in a context of a research about religion, I expect them not to lie.

Perhaps. But this is not a useful derail, anyway. The point is, people CAN lie, so I never expect that simply reporting what people say, about any subject, tells me the whole story. That was all I was saying.

[Belz...]

Oh, and by the way, yes, people lie in those situations about just that, if only because they think that they MAY be able to fool themselves, and God in the process, that they really do have faith.

[JetLeg]

Given the tremendous amount of social importance placed on religion by those so inclined, my experience is that religion is among the most frequently lied-about topics.

What was your experience of people lying about their religion?

[drkitten]

What was your experience of people lying about their religion?

Entirely irrelevant. It suffices to say that it happens, and therefore there is ample reason to believe that the statement people would not lie about their religion is empirically disproved and can not be relied upon as a basis for rational discourse.

[JohnChasWebb]

Systems of logic establish their own rules which, according to the particular system of logic, are self proving and dependent upon reason.
"Logic" does not seem to be designed to discover universal truths but, rather, 'truths' or conclusions inferred from
pre established premises.

[BillyJoe]

Dr Kitten,

How do explain why your post #290, which was posted one minute AFTER Belz's post #291, appears BEFORE his post?

Surely that defies logic!

BJ

[drkitten]

How do explain why your post #290, which was posted one minute AFTER Belz's post #291, appears BEFORE his post?


I type at speeds exceeding those of light.

Thus proving that sarcasm moves faster than light.

[BillyJoe]

Well then, seeing as Belz types at a rate of 38 words per minute, his posts must be characterised by something other than sarcasm.

Why does my conclusion seem wrong? :cool:

[cnorman18]

No tool is perfect, but if I need to drive a nail, I'll still reach for a hammer. A little rust on it won't hurt.

Logic will have to do till something better comes along.

Keep me posted.

[BillyJoe]

...but a thumb nail does not even like hammers.

[articulett]

I don't think that people lie about their relationship with god, and the place religion takes in their lives.

Interesting comment from a dude who was sure that Hitler wasn't really a Christian despite his proclamations of such... and a guy who was certain that the Muslim hijackers didn't really experience love from Allah or have faith in Islams veracity...

Moreover, clearly people deceive themselves all the time. Kids can wax blissfully over how much Santa loves them as evidenced by all the presents under the tree-- it doesn't mean Santa is real or that their feelings are reflective of facts.

I know you truly feel that you have something to teach these skeptics, but to us, you are like a first grader telling us how you know Santa is real and stamping your feet because we won't "hear" you while putting your fingers in your ears and shouting la, la, la every
time we try to simplify explanations so that your simple self can understand them.

You do something very dishonest that all woo do here. You ask questions you don't really want the answer too. I'm sure you've learned this from your clergy men. The questions are really designed to infer something negative about non-belief or to infer something "deep" about "faith" you're trying to "share" with "us". But it's so damn transparent. It's lucky you are not perceptive, because you are nearing the inanity of plumjam. Perhaps you two should have a little talk and when you figure out logic or whatever... or why faith is good-- come tell us big kids what you've concluded and why we should care what you have to say when you don't care what anyone else has to say at all... you don't even know what logic is, or faith, or skepticism. And yet you are so SURE that you have something to teach us.

[Skibum]

I don't think that people lie about their relationship with god, and the place religion takes in their lives.
I do.

[articulett]

I do.

I might too... I'm scared of some theists. So damn irrational.

[Taffer]

I might too... I'm scared of some theists. So damn irrational.

Irrationality scares me too. I'm afraid I'll catch it. :(

[articulett]

Irrationality scares me too. I'm afraid I'll catch it. :(

So it might be useful to lie about your relationship with god and the place religion plays in your life should such irrationality confront you.

Or at least be vague.

You don't want the irrational aiming super soakers filled with holy water at you and telling neighbors you are a satan worshiper. I hate lying. But I lied and had my baby baptized (which entailed swearing to raise my baby Catholic which I knew I'd never do), because my husband was dying of cancer, and he didn't want his relatives to worry about our child being damned to hell.

So there. People do lie about their relationship with god for many reasons. To get elected seems to be a biggie. Because it's expected or people will kill you is another. To keep the crazies from inflicting their platitudes upon you is a 3rd.

But even if all believers truly believed in whatever woo they claim to "feel"--that doesn't make any of it true. It certainly can't all be true because it's so contradictory...

Of course it CAN all be wrong. This is very likely given the complete lack of evidence for any form of consciousness outside a living brain attached to a living body.

[articulett]

(as an aside... when skibum wrote "I do", I thought he was saying he is a person who lies about their relationship with god, etc. to counter Jetlags assertion.... but I now realize he was probably just saying he does think people lie about their relationship with god and such...)

oops.

(I never cease to amuse myself with my misinterpretations, I must say.)

[BillyJoe]

Actually I inferred that as well, probably because I also "lie" about my relationship with god. I have none, but I often fail to correct people who assume - probably for no other reason than the fact that I'm talking to them - that I am religious like themselves!

[Skibum]

(as an aside... when skibum wrote "I do", I thought he was saying he is a person who lies about their relationship with god, etc. to counter Jetlags assertion.... but I now realize he was probably just saying he does think people lie about their relationship with god and such...)

oops.

(I never cease to amuse myself with my misinterpretations, I must say.)

You had it right. :)

I do lie about my relationship with god, and the place religion takes in my life.

I find it easier to occasionally go through the motions than to risk being looked down upon by the In-laws and probable conflict with my wife.

[BillyJoe]

I think people like us are examples of why people like Dawkins are around.

[JetLeg]

You had it right. :)

I do lie about my relationship with god, and the place religion takes in my life.

I find it easier to occasionally go through the motions than to risk being looked down upon by the In-laws and probable conflict with my wife.

So, if asked if you believe in god, you would say yes?

Would you report that you have spiritual experiences?

[JetLeg]

The questions are really designed to infer something negative about non-belief or to infer something "deep" about "faith" you're trying to "share" with "us".

What do you mean by that???

[Skibum]

So, if asked if you believe in god, you would say yes?


Depends.

Do I believe in god? No.



Would you report that you have spiritual experiences?

Nothing that leads me to believe god exists.

[articulett]

So, if asked if you believe in god, you would say yes?

Would you report that you have spiritual experiences?

I usually say "which god"?

I have profoundly moving experiences... I might call them spiritual experiences... but probably not because of the religious connotation.

[articulett]

What do you mean by that???

I meant what I said. Even the above question with all it's question marks isn't really a request for clarification or understanding. Your questions are made to infer your pre-formed conclusion-- for example, that rational people aren't making sense while you are (only to yourself I might add--at least on this forum.)

You came to a skeptics forum. Clearly you don't value skepticism or rationality-- you don't use it except when it props up what you want to believe (then you'll say inane things like "it would be lunacy to believe otherwise"-- or "that's the most sensible interpretation")-- you have a subjective opinion that you are proffering as wisdom or "higher truth" or the "true woo". And you are trying to do this with a pretend dialogue that all woos do--with questions that aren't meant to clarify anything... rather they are just designed to infer your "truth". If you can't understand that, it's because you are just way out of your league. You ask so many questions without even following through with the answers, maybe you might consider that you cannot understand. You ask vague baby-ish questions. I know you think you are smarter and wiser than everyone here, but we've seen this a hundred or more times... and you sound like a teenager just fresh back from summer bible camp. You just seem so unaware of what you do not know and many patient people have tried to spoon feed you some very valuable info.-- but you are certain you know everything already, so you spit it out and blather on enjoying the chance to prop up your faith by getting attention from intelligent people who are just trying to be nice to you.

Ask yourself truthfully why you decided to post on a skeptics forum. Clearly it's to "preach" not learn. We all see it. And you are only fooling yourself. This loaded question technique is very common amongst the woo-- they never listen to others the way they expect to be listened to. I can only imagine this is a technique their teachers and clergymen used on them-- and somehow it worked because they had a mind made soft from the meme that "faith" and "feelings" are paths towards truth (or salvation).

[articulett]

Jetlag--

There are some people who really truly believe they were abducted by aliens, right?

There are some people who believe that they have a message from the hijackers or Allah that the hijackers are being rewarded in the afterlife, right?

There are some people who believe that God told them that the book of Mormon is real and that Joseph Smith is a prophet (Mitt Romney is one of them) and that there is a current prophet whom god speaks through that heads the Mormon church, right? They claim a burning of the bosom and an "inner knowingness"...

So is that enough for you? You believe them don't you? Or do you just believe that they really believe what they say? They aren't lying. They are very likely mistaken, right? That's how skeptics see all woo. People are easy to fool. When you look for evidence you are just so much less likely to be fooled. Nobody has won Randi's millions yet. Why not? If this stuff was real, don't you think scientists would be as eager as anyone to find out more and refine the knowledge for their own use?

[articulett]

We take you as seriously as you take Scientologists. And for the same reasons. It's not that you're liars-- it's just that you are using known confirmation bias techniques to convince yourself you know something that should actually have measurable evidence in it's favor if true.

If there were a god who wanted you to convince skeptics of his existence, I think he'd know exactly what it would take. If the only evidence for your claim is on par with the evidence for the truth of Scientology, may I suggest you consider the fact that you may be as deluded as Scientologists.

[cyborg]

No tool is perfect, but if I need to drive a nail, I'll still reach for a hammer. A little rust on it won't hurt.

Logic will have to do till something better comes along.

The problem is not that the hammer is rusty: the problem is that the hammer will punch the nail into another dimension and not even inform you about it.

[BillyJoe]

...except that if ti was my thumb nail, I wouldn't need to be informed about it.