Proving all (other) religions wrong.

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 526
Topic's author
#421
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@RoderickSpode
What exactly would you do if you wanted to find God?
My desires are irrelevant. Either There is sufficient evidence or there is not and this does not stop being the case based on my desires.
what would you consider favorable evidence?
If by favorable you mean sufficient then independently verifiable scientific evidence.
I don't think that hearing voices (or more to the point immaginimg you hear voices) makes you crazy. It is when you do not recognize that the voices have no external source that I would recommend that some one seek help.
You veered completely away from the question.
Then perhaps I misunderstood. Would you mind restating or perhaps even restating the question?
Wouldn't you agree that the creator of the universe would be able to provide evidence, and/or proof of his existence to where an individual would know he was the creator?
If the universe even has a creator the ONLY thing we can be certain of is that it is a being that has created one universe. We know literally nothing else about its attributes or abilities. So in short no I do not accept this premise.
As far as preferred religion, I probably would have chosen Buddhism. Or, possibly Catholicism strictly for superficial reasons.
Beliefs are not a choice. 
Well of course there's no reference to primitive humans and deities since this is a religiously neutral article. So basically the idea is that since monkeys show signs of considerable intelligence, then assumingly they might have the ability to imagine a higher form of monkeyhood.
Yes might is the strongest word I am willing to use especially since I am not a primatologist. Might us an admission that neither of us know. I would however be far more likely to accept that a beingvwe know exists (chimpanzees) possess qualities we remain unsure how to test (abstract thought) than to believe a being exists that has never been demonstrated to exist.
In light of intelligent design
In light of the fact that intelligent design has not been demonstrated anything that we must consider in light of intelligent design is purely conjecture.
Christianity is not unique with Buddhism, and any other religion that faced persecution. More specifically, Christianity is not the only religion that faces persecution. That's all I meant.

I may not be sure what you're getting at, but specific religious conversions are unique. For instance, Buddhists don't adhere to any god or deity. 

Buddhists generally, particularly western Buddhists don't convert due to deity identification.
All of which does nothing to suggest one belief over the other or indeed over any of the thousands of other religious/spiritual/supernatural beliefs currently held by humans worldwide.

484 days later

#422
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok so how do you know all the other religions (besides yours) got things wrong? 

This question is loaded.  I would take the view that all other worldviews get things wrong. And probably all of them get some things right.  The loaded part of this question is contained within the brackets.  Although I do take the view that Christianity is in principle correct, there are many flaws and things wrong with it. And this flows out of its doctrines in any event - because it holds to the view that our minds and our hearts are tainted by sin.  This of course begs the question: is our understanding of sin incorrect? And the answer is "probably". Certainly our view - even in Christ - is not perfect and is clouded by sin about sin. 

The implication of understanding this, however, is one of the strengths of Christianity. It is that we know we are flawed people - in a flawed religion - with real flaws. We do not pretend to be perfect - even though we do agree in principle that our worldview is correct.  We know that others worldviews and their priests are going to find flaws in our thinking. Yet all this really does is send us back to our first principles - and back to the Bible to determine if there are other ways of looking at a particular point. And for the record, this is what most people in every worldview does most of the time, i.e. go back to their first principles. It is very rare to see for instance an atheist discovering flaws within their worldview to suddenly ditch their worldview. I hold to a view that - you cannot beat something with nothing. This means - that presently despite the significant flaws I see in the Christian worldview, that no other worldview offers me a better alternative within the frameworks of the world I currently live. Christianity is the most consistent reflection of the world as I see it. And of course this begs another question - does my worldview colour the way I see the world or does the world colour the way I see the world? And the answer is - probably.  I certainly stand within my culture much like everyone else does. It is not something we get to stand outside of particularly often - unless we travel to other worlds - whether that be physically, or virtually - or within the books of history or other books. I have traveled around the world and been to several developing nations with quite distinct and different worldviews to my own. I have met many beautiful and wonderful people in those cultures. So I am saying - I accept that my culture provides me with certain lens. Yet when I observe others from other cultures - with similar lens then this is helpful. Not persuasive but helpful. 

This is why I say it is a loaded question. 


This includes those who think all religions are "a little bit" right or that they all secretly somehow agree with each other. If that is your belief how do you know that other religions are wrong for claiming to be exclusively right? How have you determined that one religion really isn't top dog?
The answer to this question is not too difficult. It comes down to how you understand or determine what is right and what is wrong. What is the measure of these things? And why? 


Your disclaimer is not necessary - and actually is redundant and perhaps misleading. While it is true that proving others wrong does not ergo proves your to be correct, nor does it prove it wrong. In fact your disclaimer is rather insulting. It implies that religious people start with a particular premise - and that is in my view a bigoted view. 


Topic's author
#423
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
Your disclaimer is not necessary - and actually is redundant and perhaps misleading. While it is true that proving others wrong does not ergo proves your to be correct, nor does it prove it wrong. In fact your disclaimer is rather insulting. It implies that religious people start with a particular premise - and that is in my view a bigoted view. 
I am neither accusing any specific person nor making broad sweeping statements about any particular religion or theists in general. I am only outlining my expectations and making sure that you did not have unrealistic expectations for me. I wanted to say that before diving into the meat of your arguments.
Topic's author
#424
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
It comes down to how you understand or determine what is right and what is wrong. What is the measure of these things? And why? 
Since this is what it really comes down to I thought we could begin here. Firstly I  am not talking about right or wrong as in ethically but only as in based on observably true fact or not based on obssrvably true fact. Impricice language is unhelpful since meaning is not always as implicit as we think. That clarification out of the way and ignoring Christianity entirely for the moment how do you eliminate the Vishnu as the true divine? How have you eliminate taoism as the best path to spiritual truths? How do you know that some as yet unproposed god(s) whose message is not yet revealed to us did not create the world with his word? What methodology are you using to evaluate these claims in as unbiased a manner as possible?
#425
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
I did not think that you were intentionally trying to have a go at someone else. I think it arose however, quite naturally and that perhaps is because you do hold certain prejudices. Even if you do think you are neutral. 
Topic's author
#426
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
I am neutral in regards to any supernatural claim that has not met its burden of proof. I'm afraid you aren't being persecuted here. I would approach a mormon or a hindu or a rastafarian just the same. 
#427
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
It comes down to how you understand or determine what is right and what is wrong. What is the measure of these things? And why? 
Since this is what it really comes down to I thought we could begin here. Firstly I  am not talking about right or wrong as in ethically but only as in based on observably true fact or not based on obssrvably true fact. Impricice language is unhelpful since meaning is not always as implicit as we think. That clarification out of the way and ignoring Christianity entirely for the moment how do you eliminate the Vishnu as the true divine? How have you eliminate taoism as the best path to spiritual truths? How do you know that some as yet unproposed god(s) whose message is not yet revealed to us did not create the world with his word? What methodology are you using to evaluate these claims in as unbiased a manner as possible?
For me I am a rational person. I like logic and reason.  Culturally I going to be attracted to things that make sense - have design and can be observed and have concrete applications. The Far eastern religions tend towards an experiential understanding of truth. Things like mysticism, relativism, secret initiation rites.  Hence I do not like superstition, magic and deception.   Probably, at least in one sense, because of my distaste for such things I would not go looking for an objective understanding of truth in a melting pots of religious views that do not actually believe in objective truth.  And nor does it seem rational to do so.  If someone only believes in subjective truth and not objective truth - then it makes no sense to seek objective truth there - unless of course the objective reality is there is no objective truth. And if that is the case - then logically it produces a self-contradiction which at least from my cultural perspective is nonsense and therefore can be discounted.  

Of course however, this is not to suggest that within the realms of reason that subjective truth is not helpful nor correct.  As a determiner of objective truth, not helpful, but in the realms of other things quite helpful.  The Far East mystics have some redeeming features - for instance they have not yet divorced religion from everything else. Unlike the West, they still worldview and religion as the same.  This is why they still see atheism as religious - and that the notion of secular has a far narrower definition than in the West. Since their world view is at least holistic - not so individualistic they can also at times appreciate the concept of covenant. Although they lose sight of the individual within this due to their worldview. 

This is a start of a conversation. It is not comprehensive. Nevertheless, I don't want to write a book - let's address some of these issues - or ask others if satisfied. But please - there are many worldviews - and my starting point is always going to be with reality from where I sit. 

I look at the world and I see evil and I see good. I see some people doing things selfishly. And others doing things altruistically. I take the view that most if not all people are sincerely trying to the right thing according to their understanding of the world. I don't think people tend towards doing evil things for the sake of being evil. But there are evil people who do evil things. And there are good people who do evil things. Is a pedophile evil because of what he does to one child? Even if everything else he does is magnificent? Is someone good because although they might rob banks all their lives and spend 80 % of their life in prison - but never hurts a woman or a child? 

What explains human nature best as we look around? Is it really about survival of the fittest? Or do laws and cultural norms come into what helps us survive? Is there purpose for a life or is there not? Do we just find our own purpose? Is Adam Smith correct about "people who do things for self interest? Is Karl Marx correct in that every religion is just an opium for the masses? Are we fundamentally good or evil?  OR a mix?  And why? Environment - nurture - biology - genetics - deterministic - free will - randomness - choice. 

Every worldview - including secular worldview (yes in all of its very non-belief and non-unified forms) seeks questions to these answers - why? Because I think in sense - because we are human - and not merely an animal. 
#428
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
I am neutral in regards to any supernatural claim that has not met its burden of proof. I'm afraid you aren't being persecuted here. I would approach a mormon or a hindu or a rastafarian just the same. 
Ok - but just to be clear - I do not think you are neutral. And the reason is because neutrality is a myth that presumes superiority. And that means basically, a presumption that refuses to provide a mechanism to disprove yourself.  Also I don't feel as though I am being persecuted. Stop saying things like that.  I dont see myself as a maryr or being persecuted or a victim. I just want us to be on the same floor - but you keep putting yourself on a higher mountain. until you see that your worldview is not neutral - then we cannot reach a common place of agreement. 
Topic's author
#429
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
Ok - but just to be clear - I do not think you are neutral. And the reason is because neutrality is a myth that presumes superiority. And that means basically, a presumption that refuses to provide a mechanism to disprove yourself. 
Whether you are right or wrong about this it does not apply in this case as I have not actually made any claim that needs to be addressed. I have only asked questions and clarified some of the terms used in those questions. 

As for your previous (and much longer post) you said a lot but you never actually gave a particular methodology for making the determinations you did about eastern religions. What is the standard being used here? How do we actually falsify the claim? Because that is how one actually goes about seeking the truth. You try to eliminate all possible hypotheses and though you may never be 100% certain of anything if a testable hypothesis stands up to independent scrutiny (in the spiritual community that would have to be by competing religions which is why your help could be particularly valuable in this respect) then it graduates into scientific theory which is the closest thing to a fact that science can support. For example few people doubt the germ theory of medicine because it is easily independently verifiable. It would seem that infections are caused by viruses and bacteria rather than by demons, gods or space rays for example. 

This in particular is questionable to me.
Hence I do not like superstition, magic and deception. 
The reason it is untrue is that ot is a deception is a circular argument. I need a better modus operandi for eliminating false positives than that or we can't really discount any gods at all.
#430
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
due to nature and comparative analysis
Topic's author
#431
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
due to nature and comparative analysis
Could you be a little more specific? And please for now let's ignore your religion entirely and focus on nothing but how we go about eliminating other religions. 
#432
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
all ancient gods are nature based not the abrahamic gods
Topic's author
#433
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Again forget about the abrahamic god(s) and let's just focus on the others. You say some god(s) are nature based. What does that mean and why does it matter in our determination of true or false?
#434
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok - but just to be clear - I do not think you are neutral. And the reason is because neutrality is a myth that presumes superiority. And that means basically, a presumption that refuses to provide a mechanism to disprove yourself. 
Whether you are right or wrong about this it does not apply in this case as I have not actually made any claim that needs to be addressed. I have only asked questions and clarified some of the terms used in those questions. 
Excuse me for noting, but you have an implied position - which must exist in order for you to ask questions in relation to other religions.  It is not an express claim - yet for you to respond to any person's claims requires implicitly a position which you are standing upon.  You do not live in a vacuum. Your questions arise from your unexpressed claim. Again I am not trying to be difficult - but in my opinion, even this kind of denial implies you think you are on a higher mountain and can see more clear than the rest of us. 


As for your previous (and much longer post) you said a lot but you never actually gave a particular methodology for making the determinations you did about eastern religions. What is the standard being used here?
No offence - But I did identify a methodology. It is reason and logic. I even went so far as to demonstrate the logical self-contradiction within eastern religions very premises.  Any religion or worldview that suggests there is no objective truth is therefore false.  And it is false objectively as a matter of logic.  

I would go further - any religion or worldview which claims non-exclusivity is false.  As a matter of logic. This leaves by deduction only worldviews which claim exclusivity. Which one of course is a different matter. 

How do we actually falsify the claim? Because that is how one actually goes about seeking the truth. You try to eliminate all possible hypotheses and though you may never be 100% certain of anything if a testable hypothesis stands up to independent scrutiny (in the spiritual community that would have to be by competing religions which is why your help could be particularly valuable in this respect) then it graduates into scientific theory which is the closest thing to a fact that science can support. For example few people doubt the germ theory of medicine because it is easily independently verifiable. It would seem that infections are caused by viruses and bacteria rather than by demons, gods or space rays for example. 
No offence - but now you are expressing doctrines.  I understand what it means to falsify a claim. That is why I said what I did to you in https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1600/post-links/202944.  

Nevertheless, there are different ways to go about seeking the truth.  If I want to find out what a particular calculation is - I go to my calculator. DO I know it is truth for sure? No - but I trust in faith that the people who made the calculator is correct.  I am not a mathematician. But I am comfortable it is the truth - and objectively so. I don't think for instance it is simply subjective truth.  

Deduction is a methodology.  I don't have a problem with that - question is - where do we start and with what questions. I started above with the question of truth and objective truth. I think it is a fair place to start - not the only one. and perhaps I started before that - with other premises.  Do all people need to start at the same place? 

I honestly do not understand what you mean within the brackets. What is a spiritual community? Many people who identify a spiritual do not identify as religious. Many identify as atheists. 

I disagree with your doctrine about scientific theory being the closest thing to fact. That is simply an assertion.  Just because scientific theory is useful does not make it infallible  - not does it make it the right tool for finding truth. 


This in particular is questionable to me.
Hence I do not like superstition, magic and deception. 
The reason it is untrue is that ot is a deception is a circular argument. I need a better modus operandi for eliminating false positives than that or we can't really discount any gods at all.

Sorry - but you will have to demonstrate why it is  circular argument. The way I put it - was in essence

Worldviews which promote subjective truth by experience are self contradictory in logic. 
Eastern Religions promote subjective truth and relativism, such as superstition, magic, and deception as virtues
Therefore I am not attracted to these kinds of things. 

My position is - again - any worldview which asserts at its core that there is no such thing as objective truth is self-contradictory in logic and therefore as such can be dismissed as the one true religion or worldview. Deductively, this leaves religions and worldviews which assert objective truth as a reality.  I also assert therefore logically that any religion or world view that does not assert exclusivity as a self contradiction and therefore can be deducted from the possibility of being the one true religion or worldview. 

#435
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
you know-lunar,water,sun gods
Topic's author
#436
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
Excuse me for noting, but you have an implied position - which must exist in order for you to ask questions in relation to other religions.  It is not an express claim - yet for you to respond to any person's claims requires implicitly a position which you are standing upon.  You do not live in a vacuum. Your questions arise from your unexpressed claim. Again I am not trying to be difficult - but in my opinion, even this kind of denial implies you think you are on a higher mountain and can see more clear than the rest of us. 
What position do you imagine that I as an agnostic atheist am positively claiming whether explicitly or implicitly?
Topic's author
#437
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
No offence - But I did identify a methodology. It is reason and logic. I even went so far as to demonstrate the logical self-contradiction within eastern religions very premises.  Any religion or worldview that suggests there is no objective truth is therefore false.  And it is false objectively as a matter of logic.  
Many religions claim to be revealed objective truth. None has so far as I know met their burden of proof for this claim. In fact it would seem that the o ly objective truths human beings can know are either mathematical truths or self constructed tautology.
I disagree with your doctrine about scientific theory being the closest thing to fact. That is simply an assertion.  Just because scientific theory is useful does not make it infallible  - not does it make it the right tool for finding truth. 
How are you communicating with me right now? Is a god, demon or angel carrying our messages magically to each other? Or are we using devices engineered by observing and using scientific principles learned through the rigorous application of the scientific method? I will not trust the supernatural for answers at the very least until its efficacy in discovering, describing and most importantly utilizing facts for the betterment of mankind is shown to he equal with the scientific method's track record. That being said if we cannot use fine method of testing religions to falsify their claims we cannot arrive at any sensible conclusions about their claims unless we start with skepticism and simply dismiss all untested/untestable claims equally. 
Worldviews which promote subjective truth by experience are self contradictory in logic. 
Phylosyphical "truths" are rarely if ever subjective. There are enough different and often mutually exclusive denominations of christianity that I'm not sure it can be said to have one objectively correct standard interpretation.
Eastern Religions promote subjective truth and relativism, such as superstition, magic, and deception as virtues
Superstition and magic... like miracles and prophecies? 
Topic's author
#438
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
you know-lunar,water,sun gods
lunar,water,sun =/= false
#439
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
o offence - But I did identify a methodology. It is reason and logic. I even went so far as to demonstrate the logical self-contradiction within eastern religions very premises.  Any religion or worldview that suggests there is no objective truth is therefore false.  And it is false objectively as a matter of logic.  
Many religions claim to be revealed objective truth. None has so far as I know met their burden of proof for this claim. In fact it would seem that the o ly objective truths human beings can know are either mathematical truths or self constructed tautology.

LOL! But I am not claiming anything to be an objective religion or worldview. I am merely identifying a methodology of deductive reasoning based on reason. And if a religion claims it does not believe in objective truth - it is therefore not worth pursuing to see whether it is truth objectively.  If a religion or worldview claims that it does have objective truth then it is worth pursuing the question.  Your view that no one has met your burden of proof is unfortunately your subjective position, not objectively so.  

I disagree with your doctrine about scientific theory being the closest thing to fact. That is simply an assertion.  Just because scientific theory is useful does not make it infallible  - not does it make it the right tool for finding truth. 
How are you communicating with me right now? Is a god, demon or angel carrying our messages magically to each other? Or are we using devices engineered by observing and using scientific principles learned through the rigorous application of the scientific method? I will not trust the supernatural for answers at the very least until its efficacy in discovering, describing and most importantly utilizing facts for the betterment of mankind is shown to he equal with the scientific method's track record. That being said if we cannot use fine method of testing religions to falsify their claims we cannot arrive at any sensible conclusions about their claims unless we start with skepticism and simply dismiss all untested/untestable claims equally. 
I am communicating to you because I have faith that reason and logic are part of this world we live in.  I don't take the view that it is god or angels or other things carrying it to you. Although as an aside-  I would take the view that if God did not exist - then we would not exist and therefore we would not be communicating. 

Our devices perhaps went through some application of some form of a method - scientific - that is not something you can prove. I have so far in our discussion not attempted to rely upon supernatural for answers. And given my definition of supernatural - I probably wont either. But I do believe in the concept of REVELATION, both special and general.  But for the record since I believe logic and reason exist because objective truth exists - revelation will not contradict either. 

I don't believe it is possible to test religions to falsify claims.  Just as we cannot falsify atheism to prove its falseness. 


Worldviews which promote subjective truth by experience are self contradictory in logic. 
Phylosyphical "truths" are rarely if ever subjective. There are enough different and often mutually exclusive denominations of christianity that I'm not sure it can be said to have one objectively correct standard interpretation.
Nonsense.  Philosophical truths are truths that have been rigorously tested because they are based in logic and reasoning. If the above philosophical argument is not true, then science and its methodologies are untrue.  If reason cannot be used for deduction then there is no point using science. 

Worldviews which promote subjective truth by experience are self contradictory in logic.   I suspect the real issue here is that atheism is fundamentally a worldview which promotes subjective truth and rejects objective truth.  



Eastern Religions promote subjective truth and relativism, such as superstition, magic, and deception as virtues
Superstition and magic... like miracles and prophecies? 

The difference between miracles and prophecies from superstition and magic is the difference between objective truth and subjective truth.   

It is the same difference in many respects between determinism and free will.  

#440
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Phylosyphical "truths" are rarely if ever subjective. There are enough different and often mutually exclusive denominations of christianity that I'm not sure it can be said to have one objectively correct standard interpretation.
For whatever reason I misread your first sentence.  I read "objective" rather than "subjective".  In other words I agree with the view that philosophical truths are objective. 

In relation to Christianity and the different denominations - I am not saying that any or even all correct - but they are making the claim of objective truth as opposed to subjective truth and therefore deserves further attention.  


#441
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Everything is nature based....Even supernatural gods like Abrahamic ones are a natural product of the human imagination.
Topic's author
#442
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
How do we identify an objective truth (other than a mathematical truth or a tautology)?

Also it was meant to read objective. Phylisphical "truths" are subjective. 
Topic's author
#443
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
I don't believe it is possible to test religions to falsify claims.  Just as we cannot falsify atheism to prove its falseness. 
Any hypothesis that cannot be falsified is a poor hypothesis and deserves to be dismissed as such. By this rational it is not possible for me to accept any religious or supernatural claims whatever. Atheism is not a positive claim it is the rejection of one particular class of claim. I'm not sure what you mean by falsify as it us not a hypothesis of any kind but only a baseline of skepticism which is considered normal and correct even by you in every other intellectual evaluation (including evaluating other religions) except for your evaluation of christianity. 

In general we begin by questioning a proposition and only believe it when it is subjected to and satisfies skepticism and not before. If that is we are actually interested in the truth. 
Topic's author
#444
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
The difference between miracles and prophecies from superstition and magic is the difference between objective truth and subjective truth.   
I've already asked how we recognize objective truth (versus what is merely claimed to be objectively true) but how do I as an outside observer separate miracles and prophecy from superstition so that I can even make this distinction.
It is the same difference in many respects between determinism and free will.  
I am not convinced that freewill is a logically coherent idea but that is another discussion. 
Topic's author
#445
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@zedvictor4
Everything is nature based....Even supernatural gods like Abrahamic ones are a natural product of the human imagination.
That is perhaps a scooch further than I would go. Rather that no matter how many supernatural god claims I hear (including the one I once believed) I have yet to encounter the sufficient quality and derth of evidence that would convince me any god is more than human imagination. 
#446
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@zedvictor4
no it is not
#447
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
it explains why it exists
Topic's author
#448
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
it explains why it exists
So you are willing to concede that they do exist?
#449
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@secularmerlin
yes.
Topic's author
#450
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Well that was surprisingly easy.