Logic vs Religion (Buddhism, pray, bible, faith, Christianity)

[andys]

Sunshine
You asked for clarification when I stated, "My point is that assertions that lack any substantiation, or the will on the part of their author to provide any, must be dismissed as meaningless".
You replied, "Meaningless, Andys? Don't you mean that assertions which lack any substantiation are not compelling on others? An assertion can be meaningful, yet lack substantiation, can't it?"

I understand your confusion. I plead guilty to not being very clear. Please have patience for my long-winded answer. But your question is excellent and deserves a fair response.

As you know, the word "meaning" has several meanings: Some examples,
"The dark clouds mean rain."
"That gift means a lot to me."
"I mean business!"
"What do you mean by entering without knocking!"
"What does that poem mean?"

You get the idea. Anyway, I'm a stodgy stickler when debating. If you are familiar with A. J. Ayer or the movement known as "Logical Positivism", you will recall the famous mouthful called "the Verifiability Criterion of Cognitive Meaningfulness". This was a sort of Occham's Razor used for distinguishing statements that are meaningful from those which are not.

This verifiability criterion boils down to confirmability. Confirmability requires that an assertion be capable of being verifiable or falsifiable in practice, or simply in principle, by the specification of empirical evidence that would count for or against its truth or falsity. Consider this statement: "There is another Earth just like ours in the universe." This actually IS a meaningful statement because it admits of confirmation, at least in principle; future space travel could possibly confirm it. However, statements like "My God is on a deeper level than cold Logic" are not verifiable, even in principle. There is no empirical test in principle for establishing either the existence of this god, never mind his attitude toward Logic, cold or otherwise.

All statements about a god or any of his imagined attributes, thoughts, predispositions, or his favourite colour are meaningless in the context of rational discourse. They do, however offer considerable diagnostic insight into the psychological status of the mind of the person making such wildly unfounded claims.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by andys

I am most passionate about my contempt for religion and whole-heartedly invite any debate related to it.

What's the point? You've obviously made up your mind.

But you still haven't provided any support for your assertion that "evidence is the downfall of religion."

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by 3.14

it takes faith to believe facts

So, is that why when I slam your toe with a sledge hammer you will understandably need to pause and gather your faith before you in fact feel any pain?

[andys]

Storm
You are perplexed that a person who knows something would want to discuss it with others in a debate; In your words: "What' the point? You've obviously made up your mind."

I most certainly have made up my mind about religion and the all its goofy, contradictory dogmas, scriptures, talk of angles, life after death, blah blah...whew. Making up one's mind is an inescapable result of reaching the only intelligent conclusion that is possible. Regarding religion, it should only require an average amount of intelligence and about four minutes of (rational) though to reveal the absurdity of such lunacy. I'm sure you have experience this sometime in your life. Tell me, how much intelligence and rational thought did it require on your part, to make up your mind about the existence of the Easter Bunny?

I see you're still after me to provide support for my assertion that "evidence is the downfall of religion."
I'm running out of new ways to explain this simple confusion. (I ask you to read my recent post (directly above?) in which I explain to Sunshine what I understand constitutes a meaningful statement).

Let me answer you in simple point form:
- No evidence can prove a negative proposition (even in principle) e.g., no evidence can prove the non-existence of something (from Easter Bunnies to god).
-The person claiming the existence of something (from Easter Bunnies to god) is the one who has the burden of proof (evidence). Not the innocent bystander (me).
-Religious people assert the existence of a god.
-Therefore the burden of proof is theirs, not mine.
-The claim that there are gods has persisted since before recorded history, yet they can produce NO EVIDENCE. That to me, is one of religion's most obvious downfalls.

The believer's wild claim that there is a god floating around upstairs is no different than your mother's wild claim that a cute bunny is out there with chocolate eggs. Where is the evidence?! Hello? I'm still waiting for an answer. (Foot tapping...)

[Storm]

Originally Posted by andys

Storm
You are perplexed that a person who knows something would want to discuss it with others in a debate; In your words: "What' the point? You've obviously made up your mind."

Ah, no. Contempt is not something you know.

I most certainly have made up my mind about religion and the all its goofy, contradictory dogmas, scriptures, talk of angles, life after death, blah blah...whew.

That's not all religion. My religion has no dogma. As for contradictions, I've asked severeal atheists, as a favor, to try to find flaws in my thinking. Not one has been pointed out yet.

Making up one's mind is an inescapable result of reaching the only intelligent conclusion that is possible.

And your arrogant stance that yours is the only possible intelligent conclusion is exactly what leads me to think that debate with you is pointless. You have no interest in coming to understand my side. You've already dismissed me as stupid. Why would I want to talk to you?

Regarding religion, it should only require an average amount of intelligence and about four minutes of (rational) though to reveal the absurdity of such lunacy.

By all means, reveal the absurdity of my beliefs. Oh, wait - YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY ARE.

I'm sure you have experience this sometime in your life. Tell me, how much intelligence and rational thought did it require on your part, to make up your mind about the existence of the Easter Bunny?

The Easter Bunny is not a valid comparison to God.

I see you're still after me to provide support for my assertion that "evidence is the downfall of religion."
I'm running out of new ways to explain this simple confusion.

It's not confusion on my part, andys. I'm calling you out, plain and simple. Either back up your assertion or withdraw it.

- No evidence can prove a negative proposition (even in principle) e.g., no evidence can prove the non-existence of something (from Easter Bunnies to god).
-The person claiming the existence of something (from Easter Bunnies to god) is the one who has the burden of proof (evidence). Not the innocent bystander (me).
-Religious people assert the existence of a god.
-Therefore the burden of proof is theirs, not mine.
-The claim that there are gods has persisted since before recorded history, yet they can produce NO EVIDENCE. That to me, is one of religion's most obvious downfall.

No, the believer does not automatically make positive claim. Positive claim is a statement of fact. An assertion. "I believe in God" is a statement of belief/ opinion not subject to the burden of proof. "God does (not) exist" is a statement of fact, and therefore subject to the BoP. It can be taken up as easily by the atheist as the believer.

I thought you claimed to have studied logic.

The believer's wild claim that there is a god floating around upstairs is no different than your mother's wild claim that a cute bunny is out there with chocolate eggs.

Yes, it is.

Where is the evidence?! Hello? I'm still waiting for an answer. (Foot tapping...)

There is no compelling evidence, for either side. What (very weak) evidence there is points to God. What is it? Personal experience. Should that convince you? No, of course not, if it isn't yours. But it should give you pause before you go dismissing 90% of the species as irrational idiots.

[yossarian22]

Originally Posted by Storm

No, of course not, if it isn't yours. But it should give you pause before you go dismissing 90% of the species as irrational idiots.

The sad thing is, 90% of our species probably are irrational idiots.

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by andys

You get the idea. Anyway, I'm a stodgy stickler when debating. If you are familiar with A. J. Ayer or the movement known as "Logical Positivism", you will recall the famous mouthful called "the Verifiability Criterion of Cognitive Meaningfulness". This was a sort of Occham's Razor used for distinguishing statements that are meaningful from those which are not.

According to verificationism, a statement is true only if its content is verifiable somehow. This principle leaves no room for anything other than verifiable empirical observations of the natural world (and maxims of logic). This has serious consequences for moral philosophy. Moral statements are not easily verifiable, so moral judgments are neither true nor false, but they are meaningless. But that seems just plain wrong. It is not meaningless to say "Rape is evil." Ayer and the gang have been forced to say that moral talk is merely the evincing of opinion or feeling. So "Rape is evil" means merely "Boo for rape," and "Love is good" means "Yay for love." Nothing more. But that seems counterintuitive to me. At the very least, it's highly controversial, and most philosophers, as I've said, have rejected it. Boo for verificationism!

A more significant problem is that verificationism is unverifiable. It certainly isn't so obvious as simple arithmetical or logical statements. And there are no ways we can go about determining its truth. So verificationism fails to meet its own standard. In other words, it's self-refuting. So I'd seek elsewhere for a criterion of truth (if such a beastie even exists).

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by yossarian22

The sad thing is, 90% of our species probably are irrational idiots.

Ah, well thank goodness for those 10% of us who are enlightened.