Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey
I do have my facts straight, I've read the book. I was only making a passing comment of that one scene in the book.
|
Well you see, you put forward the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey
Uh, no. No matter how hard you believe two plus two equals five, it won't come true. You've read too much Nineteen Eighty-Four.
|
Which suggests that you were telling me that I took Orwell's message too much to heart. However, Orwell's message was what you were trying to put forth yourself, and I agree that bare assertion does not constitute knowledge. Thus, I agree with Orwell's message (that bare assertion does not constitute knowledge was [at least] pretty much one of Orwell's messages) and your suggestion to the contrary is wrong. Perhaps you misinterpreted my position or you intended to put forward something along the lines of, 'You give too much credence to the propaganda described in Nineteen Eighty-Four.'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey
I'm not, nor ever, tried to prove that God, or any variation of him, exists. It's possible he doesn't, and the only harm that comes out of me believing in him is that if I'm wrong, I just stop existing.
|
I did not say that you had the wrong idea about the burden of proof. I did, however, wish to ensure that my position on it was clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey
...trying to say all people who believe in god or the idea of one are illogical is a bit extreme.
|
It is illogical to believe in God because belief is illogical: it does not adhere to deductive logic. The 'idea' of God itself is not contrafactual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey
Trying to "show us the light" will do nothing.
|
I never used that phrase. I can hope that my arguments are sound and will lead you to acknowledge the shortcomings of your own positions, but I will not assert that which I cannot support--as 'divine truth' or otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey
Minds far greater than yours or mines entertain the thought of a higher being.
|
You do not know enough of me to judge how 'great' my mind is. Appealing to authorities' support to try and show something to be true is a recognised fallacy. Besides, you seem to have chosen to use the word 'greater' when better choices would have been along the lines of 'better', 'more powerful', 'more perspicacious' and so on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey
It's not so wrong to have faith, is what I'm saying.
|
Using faith as a tool to derive knowledge can lead to an infinite number of externally contradictory (i.e., logically incorrect) and internally contradictory conclusions. Faith is bare assertion. Thus, faith is not a valid tool to derive knowledge, and using it as a tool to influence others is indeed what I would call 'wrong'. You said that that 2+2=4 is an absolute truth. However, assuming faith as a valid informative tool results in contradictory conclusions, such as that 2+2 equals four, five, six seven and any other value.
Faith is something that has very successfully allowed fools to justify their atrocities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey
I know the ramifications, Miles. But if you honestly think those hundreds of millions of people would go on Crusades, or burn crosses, or cause genocide to another religious group, is a bit farfetched. Those were the atrocities you were alluding to, right?
|
Not only were those not the atrocities I had at the forefront of my mind, but you also seem to have missed my point. My point was not that hundreds of millions of people would subjugate others. My point was that hundreds of millions--if not billions--have been subjugated at religions' behest. As a correction to what I think I may have poorly formulated: religion itself--as a concept--does not decree these subjugations. However, religions have. It is a fine distinction, but an important one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mashed Potato
In which category does a "belief in diety" fit in? Is it alogical or illogical?
|
In my usage, 'belief' refers to holding a position one holds due to faith. Thus, in my usage, belief in a deity is illogical by definition. Whether or not thinking a deity exists is necessarily illogical and whether or not demonstrating that assertion is within the scope of logic may depend on one's definition of 'deity'. Lots of discussion of 'God' takes place without any parties neither having a valid definition of 'God' nor realising that they lack a valid definition. Without a valid definition, the only rational stance is agnosticism.
That said, it is unclear what it means for something to be 'outside the scope of logic'. Does it mean that no facts are present from which logical conclusions can be made? Does it mean something else entirely?