Official Religious Debate Thread

[The Geologist]

Okay, okay.

I'll poke around some tomorrow for good tidbits about not only the instrument I mentioned, but the theory and etc. etc. behind it.  Maybe even a huge post about microscopy in general and how we really break down the nano/pick level stuff like atoms and beyond. 

And why the evidence is in favor of the existence of atoms.  Which, I think, is what started all of this.

For now, I gotta stop checking back on this topic >_>  Only so many hours of freedom in the evening.

[Smegma]

And why the evidence is in favor of the existence of atoms.  Which, I think, is what started all of this.

Maybe not.

[Veritas]

Smegma, please provide an example what you would view as a conclusive proof.

[Smegma]

Smegma, please provide an example what you would view as a conclusive proof.

If I had an example, we wouldn't be having this trouble.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Smegma's playing the "you can't be sure anything exists" card, which, while potentially interesting, is wholly impractical for debates such as these.  While I take partial blame for starting him on this particular tangent, I have to say I agree to some extent.  To the scientifically uninitiated, an electron microscope proves the existence of atoms just as much as a thetan meter proves the existence of Xenu.

If I disagree about the existence of atoms, someone can say, "Well, the experts (like Geo) know otherwise, and you're just remaining willfully ignorant."  Why doesn't that apply to religion? Sure, it's more inexact than the physical sciences, but surely there are people who have had religious or spiritual experiences that would know, right? And if so, what right does anyone have to say "You're wrong because it hasn't happened to me"? Why can't they accept that religion has its experts (and no, I'm not necessarily talking about the Pope or people like that) that have knowledge on a much deeper level than they do?

[Smegma]

Smegma's playing the "you can't be sure anything exists" card

I never said this. If you've concluded I've been saying this, you do not understand my point.

Sure, it's more inexact than the physical sciences, but surely there are people who have had religious or spiritual experiences that would know, right?

Well here, religious experience is not a spiritual experience, especially if we accept these as evidence. We have to define what a religions versus spiritual experience.

I think its quite acceptable to deem a religious experience as taking part of the ceremonial/ritual act of a religion. IE: Going to church, respecting the sabbath, prayer, meditation, so on.

To me, the word spiritual has many different connotations, that being to pertaining to certain religious philosophies. Instead I will use the word mystical experience (big surprise, huh?) which I feel is what you mean. These experiences are less definable. However, if we examine certain aspects assigned to the mystical experience, we can find core components.

Most mystics and even philosophers on mysticism will agree there is both an external mystical experience and internal. I know I am missing some but I think these few bullet points will suffice for a mystical experience (internal):
1. Ineffable/Inability to express wholly
2. A strong conviction towards the experiencing being "real".
3. An understanding of the true nature of reality, as a whole.

There are others, but I feel this constituents the most basic components (especially, later on at "higher" states.) Now, these states can be brought on or accompanied by religious experience. However, all the major religions have these core components. So, what does this tell you about your religion and its dogma? In fact, what about all the religions axioms.

Furthermore, hallucinogens often bring on these experiences and many people have described the experience similar to many mystics. I would agree too, that these experiences are mystical. However, I am not sure how far it can take you.

Once again, how do their experiences prove their religion? If others who do not follow such rules and beliefs have been privy to the same experiences (in religions case, the same "God"). Yet these people came to a different conclusion of what it meant.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Once again, how do their experiences prove their religion? If others who do not follow such rules and beliefs have been privy to the same experiences (in religions case, the same "God"). Yet these people came to a different conclusion of what it meant.

Now this is interesting to me.  You have access to the same facts that Mangled* does, yet you reach the complete opposite conclusion.  I'm rather inclined to agree with your viewpoint, and if I sounded like I was saying that spiritual experiences prove a particular religion, that wasn't my goal.  I was just arguing against Mangled*'s claim that the existence of different interpretations of God prove there is no God.  That's the first step; proving my personal religion comes much later.

[GSx_Major]

Mangled*'s claim that the existence of different interpretations of God prove there is no God.

[most religions] promote the idea that they are the absolute one truth and all other religions are false.

Let's not straw man eachother to death here.

You have access to the same facts that Mangled* does, yet you reach the complete opposite conclusion.

If you could elaborate on these facts and conclusions and how they're completely opposite, that'd be great. 

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Mangled*'s claim that the existence of different interpretations of God prove there is no God.

[most religions] promote the idea that they are the absolute one truth and all other religions are false.

Let's not straw man eachother to death here.

I'm not.  You just picked the wrong quote.  Here's the right one:

If God really existed then religion wouldn't exist.

You have access to the same facts that Mangled* does, yet you reach the complete opposite conclusion.

If you could elaborate on these facts and conclusions and how they're completely opposite, that'd be great. 

Mangled* seems to think that the presence of dozens of religions prove that they're all misguided attempts by humans to find something that doesn't exist.  Smegma appears to be saying that spiritual experiences are in fact evidence of something deeper that truly does exist.  Seems opposite to me.

[GSx_Major]

I'm not.  You just picked the wrong quote.  Here's the right one:

If God really existed then religion wouldn't exist.

So instead of going for the more detailed explanation of what he meant, you go for an (incorrect) interpretation of what he said earlier.

Mangled* seems to think that the presence of dozens of religions prove that they're all misguided attempts by humans to find something that doesn't exist.  Smegma appears to be saying that spiritual experiences are in fact evidence of something deeper that truly does exist.  Seems opposite to me.

Not much facts and conclusions there. Just your interpretation of things.

To me, the word spiritual has many different connotations, that being to pertaining to certain religious philosophies. Instead I will use the word mystical experience (big surprise, huh?) which I feel is what you mean.

It appears you failed to read this part.

I think you'll find all theistic religions promote the idea that they are the absolute one truth and all other religions are false. So how do you know you're in the correct one?

Once again, how do their experiences prove their religion? If others who do not follow such rules and beliefs have been privy to the same experiences (in religions case, the same "God"). Yet these people came to a different conclusion of what it meant.

To me, it seems like they're saying very similar things.

[Veritas]

Smegma, please provide an example what you would view as a conclusive proof.

If I had an example, we wouldn't be having this trouble.

So you can tell me that a proof is wrong, but you can't provide the method of performing a correct proof.

See the problem here?

[Smegma]

Smegma, please provide an example what you would view as a conclusive proof.

If I had an example, we wouldn't be having this trouble.

So you can tell me that a proof is wrong, but you can't provide the method of performing a correct proof.

See the problem here?

I can tell you the general form of why its wrong, and I did, but I cannot come up with an one that is true at the moment.

[Veritas]

Smegma, please provide an example what you would view as a conclusive proof.

If I had an example, we wouldn't be having this trouble.

So you can tell me that a proof is wrong, but you can't provide the method of performing a correct proof.

See the problem here?

I can tell you the general form of why its wrong, and I did, but I cannot come up with an one that is true at the moment.

All you said was that there must be an assumption being made somewhere without providing that assumption.

I'm surprised you didn't come up with p implies q, p, thus q though.

[Smegma]

All you said was that there must be an assumption being made somewhere without providing that assumption.

That seems to be a problem to me, in the long run.

[Veritas]

All you said was that there must be an assumption being made somewhere without providing that assumption.

That seems to be a problem to me, in the long run.

You lost me there.

[Smegma]

Given that knowledge requires both belief and justification, it only seems fair that the justification be known.

[Farah]

so smegma, would you say you define knowledge as justified true belief?

[Smegma]

so smegma, would you say you define knowledge as justified true belief?

So long as we understand what the standards of justification.

[Farah]

let us make the dangerous assumption we do, how would you respond to the gettier problem?

assuming proposition p is known to be true if, and only if:
p is true
s believes p is true
s is justified in believing p is true

so i'll give a generic example of the gettier problem as you probably familiar with it and probably have anticipated this.

"a" and "b" are both applying for the same job. say that "a" has a justified belief that "b" has a leather wallet. if "a" also has a justified belief that "b" will get the job, and therefore "a" concludes that "the man with the leather wallet" will get the job. despite this, "a" gets the job, as by a stroke of luck he had a leather wallet, despite that this was unknown to him at the time although his belief that "the man with the leather wallet will get the job" was justified and true.

i've read a couple of responses on this but i'd just like to see how you address it

[Smegma]

While it could be easily argued, from my perspective, that some form of deductive reasoning is the only certain proof I will not reduce to that. Only because the same rebuttal of "it goes nowhere" will come up.

However, because the clause provided is of an inductive reasoning, it is possible to demerit it with "outside" information. That is, "a" never made any epistemic irresponsibility. Though, we are given known that he did not know. It is because of this that we may find him in good practice, yet not bringing truth to the table. It is this type of view which allows for urbane skepticism. One that reduces scientific truths to pragmatic ones, which I am fine with. In the apparent world science is king and it has earned its merit multitudes of times with its useful applications. Though, to deem it as truth (aside from a pragmatic truth) I would be remiss to simply forgo the utmost scrutiny that I myself can apply. If this is wrong, so bet it. I have not seen how yet, but I am fully aware that I may be.