How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

@Frank Apisa,

Yes you did.
And I have clearly addressed your decade long point on it!

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque wrote:

Yes you did.
And I have clearly addressed your decade long point on it!

Here is what we are working on:

If there are people here arguing that there are no gods (creating entities)...or that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one god...

...then they are essentially arguing from the same standpoint as those arguing that there is at least one god...or that it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are no gods.

All of those things are nothing but blind guess...and NOT the result of reason or logic or anything else. And some (most) of the so-called logic used is so defective, it is laughable.

No mention of agnosticism.

You have NOT addressed that...you have diverted...and squirmed.

There is NOTHING wrong or incorrect with what I said there.

Why not just acknowledge that...and cut out the bullshit?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You might just as well replace that X for flying Tea Pots...the point can be Universalized and subsumed under the umbrella of what we can know or not know. Its is a problem of epistemology! And the name for those who argue we cannot know is Agnose (without knowledge)!

Thus what I have addressed was the problem at large Universally by showing that pleading for strong agnose is self contradictory!

There is no dodging, no diverting, no squirm! Just pure cut clean straight forward LOGIC!

...now go back and read it until your eyes fall flat. I rather not have to make this a futile "yes you did no you didn't" kind of discussion. I have nothing against you and I am just going through the motions. Either you address my point directly rather then reiterate yours and show me a flaw, or drop it for good.

You might not fully appreciate what I wrote back there but you are in hot water! Now either you show me the flaw or you keep arguing alone. I will only reply to a cut clean point regarding the Logic of my counter from now on!

2 Replies

@Albuquerque,

Either:

You cannot know ANYTHING, on which case you stay silent even about the limits of knowledge itself!
(you might as well be brain dead)

or:

You can know at least something that you first though you could not know!
The present state of affairs of your mind on what you can or cannot know about X right now is irrelevant!!!
(This is not even about God any more, replace it for X anything)

0 Replies

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque wrote:

You might just as well replace that X for flying Tea Pots...the point can be Universalized and subsumed under the umbrella of what we can know or not know. Its is a problem of epistemology! And the name for those who argue we cannot know is Agnose (without knowledge)!

Thus what I have addressed was the problem at large Universally by showing that pleading for strong agnose is self contradictory!

...now go back and read it until your eyes fall flat. I rather not have to make this a futile "yes you did no you didn't" kind of discussion. I have nothing against you and I am just going through the motions. Either you address my point directly rather then reiterate yours and show me a flaw, or drop it for good.

You are being more pathetic with each post, Albuquerque.

I do not know if there are any gods or not. I also do not know if there are any sentient beings living on any planet circling the nearest 10 stars to Sol.

You do not know those things either...but apparently you do not have the character or ethical wherewithal to acknowledge that you do not.

Quote:

There is no dodging, no diverting, no squirm! Just pure cut clean straight forward LOGIC!

You are dodging, diverting, and squirming so much that either you do not realize you are dodging, diverting, and squirming...or you are lying when you say you are not.

As for logic, apparently you would not recognize it if it bit you on the ass.

Quote:

You might not fully appreciate what I wrote back there but you are in hot water! Now either you show me the flaw or you keep arguing alone. I will only reply to a cut clean point regarding the Logic of my counter from now on!

Yeah, running away might be your smartest move. Do it if you have the spine, because as I mentioned, you are being more pathetic with each dodging, diverting post?

Anyway...stay safe, Albuquerque.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, I’m standing right here. I can hear you whisper 'and neither do you' every time.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

The problem with Frank is that he picks a ill defined concept and runs with it to bluntly state for a decade that everyone is guessing because the ill defined X did not show up yet. It makes as much sense as speaking of pink flying elephants and saying that everyone is guessing wildly. Strawman!

Unless he can provide an extensive definition with all the properties of God without exception pleading for ignorance is moot. He seams to lack the will or understanding to get the point that any fair theologian would grant at the start of a conversation. That is, what is your definition, and lets go from there to see what we can know. Pink flying elephants are not in the same category of black swans.

2 Replies

@Albuquerque,

I don’t have any problem with Frank knowing his own limitations. That’s a good thing to know. As Det. Lt. Callahan said, 'A man's got to know his own limitations.'

I just don’t accept that everyone must have the same ones as Frank.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Yes , I made that distinction clear when I asked him for a Universal consensual definition. If all one can say is that such being/s (he used the plural occasionally) are just the creator/s of Universe/s then I know a bunch of game devs that fit the definition of Gods. Its lacking for such a strong statement.

I have nothing against thinking about Metaphysics...in fact I did it more often than many around that wouldn't bother to spend 1 minute with it. I've been doing it for my lifetime!
Asking for a properly defined concept to start a conversation on the self consistency of the concept is not only fair but necessary to engage in any meaningful statement about it.

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

When a 'Frank' puts you on 'ignore', you’ll know you’ve made your point understood.

But as fun as it is, even that gets old. I’d rather talk about ideas. That I’ve come to A2K this morning tells you the poverty we live in.

0 Replies

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque wrote:

The problem with Frank is that he picks a ill defined concept and runs with it to bluntly state for a decade that everyone is guessing because the ill defined X did not show up yet. It makes as much sense as speaking of pink flying elephants and saying that everyone is guessing wildly. Strawman!

Unless he can provide an extensive definition with all the properties of God without exception pleading for ignorance is moot. He seams to lack the will or understanding to get the point that any fair theologian would grant at the start of a conversation. That is, what is your definition, and lets go from there to see what we can know. Pink flying elephants are not in the same category of black swans.

ANYONE who claims there is a god...is simply sharing a blind guess.

ANYONE who claims there are no gods...is simply sharing a blind guess.

In like manner...

...ANYONE who claims it is more likely that there is a god than that there are no gods...is simply sharing a blind guess.

And ANYONE who claims it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one god...is simply sharing a blind guess.

You seem uncomfortable with that, Al.

Tough!

You've never been able to reasonably dispute it.

Because it cannot be disputed.

And grow the balls to speak directly to me...rather than trying this round about nonsense.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Good morning Frank hope you feeling well this morning and everything is OK back there. He shall speak of more productive topics in the future, not this one.
Hey, take it as a victory will ya...I rather don't lose my interaction with you because of stubbornness, or entrenchment or whatever it is, maybe my poor English, or deficient logic assessment. Maybe you have a point that is hidden in a blind spot of what my mind can grasp. Leave it be. I really don't understand how you came to that conclusion and it seams whatever I tried to explain to you in multiple facets has fallen in def hears. We should not ever push people beyond what they are willing to give freely!
Hope to keep seeing you around old man, all the best!

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque wrote:

Good morning Frank hope you feeling well this morning and everything is OK back there. He shall speak of more productive topics in the future, not this one.
Hey, take it as a victory will ya...I rather don't lose my interaction with you because of stubbornness, or entrenchment or whatever it is, maybe my poor English, or deficient logic amassments. Maybe you have a point that is hidden in a blind spot of what my mind can grasp. Leave it be. I really don't understand how you came to that conclusion and it seams whatever I tried to explain to you in multiple facets has fallen in def hears. We should not ever push people beyond what they are willing to give freely!
Hope to keep seeing you around old man, all the best!

Too goddam much snow to be shoveled for me to be a happy camper today, Albuqerque. Already almost a foot on the ground...and it is supposed to continue coming down for the next 30 hours...into at least noon tomorrow...perhaps even later.

I'm too old for this crap...and I took a fall that banged up my ribs a few days ago...so the shoveling and blowing the snow is not a task I'm looking forward to.

Sorry this is a topic we cannot discuss. It is one that holds the most interest for me...even more than today's turbulent politics.

But I have vowed only to reply to stuff posted...and not to initiate comments on the issue, so if nothing comes my way...there will be no more from me.

Stay safe yourself, old friend.

0 Replies

Quote:

Sorry this is a topic we cannot discuss. It is one that holds the most interest for me...even more than today's turbulent politics.

Oh God! The Irony!

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Perception is a Mirror, reflecting an Experience of what we hold to be true. So everyone having their own perspectives, is a Water, let's say. Yet, we Experience Solidity. Where does this come from? Is it not Truth, which gives anything a solid consistency? Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying Truth and Experience are one and the same. God forbid. But, they "can be". I hope my choice of words is not offensive. But if there is such a thing as solidity, which implies there is such a thing as Truth, which implies an Absolute, then where do we find "reason" to question that validity of Truth? If there is such a thing as Truth, which is verified by solidity, then there is clearly the Experience of lies as well. Any "religion" which is not founded upon Truth, is a lie, and therefore, is not. Until, of course, someone gives it life. Their life. Thus presenting them with an Experience of said lie. The scientific method then ensures the circulation and solidification of the Experience. Therefore any science-so-called, using Experience to justify its findings, is an even more sinister and deadly virus than the religions this mother religion claims to refute.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

My answer for the forum question, "How can we be sure all religions are wrong", is just as simple as looking at the people who come up with the religions and follow them. Human error alone is evidence to verify there is surely something wrong with all manmade religions. At that level, all religion is philosophy. Small "p". Philosophy, big "P", affects things, situations, people, indeed, but is not necessarily True. Then again, I'm sure this would be chalked up as a "philosophy", by most of the so-called religions. Even the lack of a spiritual belief is still a religion. So yes, atheism is a religion as well. Buddhists are divided as much as scientists are. The list goes on and on.

But I will say, for the Experience of anything "firm", there must be Truth. It is safe to say that all religions have a piece, some more than others, of that Truth, and so, yes, all are "wholly" wrong.

But the existence of the Experience of Firm is not able to be questioned.

When coming from this POV, all that is not 100% Firm, is a "Water".

Though some things may appear Firm, for a time, whether or not we have knowledge of the crumbling makes no difference in the end, as it is still a Water, just without Experience. I apologize if that sentence seems a bit hard to understand, or is grammatically exaggerated.

1 Reply

@NoName77,

I agree with you...experience is the key.I use the terms Spectator and Player to try and explain this.One is completely embroiled within ALL the sciences.One should not see oneself as separate from them.Also,most modern day philosophy is based upon a good is bad ....bad is good concept.We now know that there can also be 2 good’s simultaneously and 2 bad’s simultaneously as well.How did we miss it?

0 Replies

Think about this. The christian religion is the most popular religion in the United States. The bible consists of 788,300 words with many contradictions, errors and omissions based on current knowledge of our planet and existence. There are over 1000 religions now practiced in this world. Try this statement: "Treat all living things with respect and dignity." Only 8 words. What can be simpler?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Your statement is a hopeful statement....as you can't prove it to be true....that is your problem.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Should the Corona Virus be treated with respect and dignity?

2 Replies

How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know