Does religion count as a valid argument?

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric Your horrible use of the red herring fallacy aside,

Wrong, they perfectly capture the intent of your post. You are comparing religion and other worldviews - including Lockean natural rights theory - , and concluding that religion is inferior because it is less "factual" and has a lesser capacity for evidence. I then show you how other worldviews are equally baseless in facts and evidence, refuting your conclusion that religion is inferior on the basis of facts and evidence.

all those things are rational and possible. Cosmic jewish zombies aren't. So, basing a world view on what you think the cosmic jewish zombie has telepathically imparted to you is ridiculous.

First, let's note that you've significantly backpedaled here (which I suggested you do). Now, you say that you determine the superiority or inferiority of a worldview by testing it for a level of rationale and possibility, and not on actual evidence or factual basis. Let's draw from this one thing, at least: that you're shifting your position in the middle of the argument (for whatever reason. It is my opinion that you found your previous position indefensible, since I doubt you would unconsciously change your argumentation). But I'll say that I could easily stop right here as the winner, since we debated the point of a previous standard, I won, and you moved on to some other test standard in the hope of winning with that one.

Second, why should an appeal to natural rights be superior to an appeal to a "cosmic jewish zombie"?
You say the first is possible while the second is not.
1) Warrants? Why is the first possible while the second is not?
2) Heck, while we're not substantiating anything. I say that the first isn't possible either. Where did these natural rights come from? Who caused them?
You'll find that no natural rights theorist will have a straight answer unless they either treat them as a given in human nature or say a wizard did it. Ok, they say God did it, but I like dnd references.



Treat the ABOVE as more important than below. I think the above has more potential for good debating. But it's up to you.

If you honestly believe that the phrases... "We have human rights because it's beneficial to to individuals and groups to treat others as they wish to be treated." ... and... "We have human rights because a cosmic alien named Xenu mandated that we have rights because we're alien souls living in human bodies." ... are on equal logical footing than your logic / world view is inferior to mine.

Are you !@#$ing serious? HAHAHA
You are seriously contending that a possible reason for rights to exist is that it'd be nice if they did? Or even more ludicrous, because your post is so vague that I'm forced to allow for multiple interpretations, natural rights have a rational possibility for existing because it'd be nice to THINK they exist?

Getting more calm now, let's draw some conclusions. I, and every single other person here, would look at this reasoning and find it ridiculous because it simultaneously proves that 1) God, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, peace and love, free candy, all exist, 2) I have a million, no, two million, no, a billion dollars, 3) I wreck shop in Call of Duty...it proves ALL of them and more on the basis that it would be nice if these were true. (Incidentally, the third is most definitely true )
This is the most baseless reasoning of ANYTHING you might think of because it manages to prove EVERYTHING. EVERY claim is instantly proven on this basis.

At least your second rationale using Xenu's mandate on the basis of alien souls and human bodies is specific, since we aren't told that Xenu has mandates on every single other possible claim. The first rationale, however, is immediately applicable to every claim, and proves every claim, because someone somewhere finds it preferable that he have a million dollars or whatever else that is "nice." If someone wants it to be true, it's true, according to the First Rationale.



Now let's step back. What was the point of you giving these examples?
You sought to show that certain worldviews are superior to others, using a test standard of how "rational" or "possible" it is.

For some reason that escapes me, you found it more rational that our pleasure that a claim be true is proof enough that it is true than an appeal to a god of alien souls in human bodies.
1) You provide no warrant for WHY the first is superior to the second. At this point, I could stop typing. I don't have to prove your claims for you.
2) Even given you failing to meet your initial burden of proof, I've shown you analysis as to why the First Rationale has serious consequences, as much as the Second Rationale, since both allow for what YOU WOULD CONSIDER to be wild and ridiculous appeals (to mandates by Gods, or to how nice it would be if it were true).

[Zhavric]

Wow... just... wow. I don't think you've ever missed the point worse than you've missed it here.

Let's review:

Quote by: me While there is a contextual element to consider, in general using an unsupported claim as evidence for another unsupported claim isn't a tenable form of debate. ... Other worldviews have the potential to be based on facts rather than religion which is based on nonsense.

Quote by: you So it's a fact that we all have natural rights which are inalienable, granted to us in the state of nature?

Quote by: Me So, basing a world view on what you think the cosmic jewish zombie has telepathically imparted to you is ridiculous.

Then you just went all Donald Duck on me. Accept that you were wrong. Accept that it's stupid to base a world view on unsupported claims and move on. Period.

[Fangrim]

Listen, Zhavric, however ridiculous you think basing policy decisions on a "cosmic jewish zombie," you'll find any other bases equally ridiculous.

That's the point. You say religion is horrible means of evaluating claims because it has no basis in reality.

Neither does Lockean rights theory. Our Founding Fathers themselves, in the attempt to explain the existence of natural rights, had to appeal to divine creation.
The existence of natural rights is the most unsupported claim you will ever find. And even if you don't accept that it IS the most unsupported claim, it is at least the equal of any other philosophical worldview.

If you don't accept religious argumentation because of its lack of factual basis, you can't accept natural rights theory either. If you're fine with that conclusion, then we agree.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim Listen, Zhavric, however ridiculous you think basing policy decisions on a "cosmic jewish zombie," you'll find any other bases equally ridiculous.

Nope. You're wrong. Basing a decision on something potentially reasonable is superior to basing a decision on something inherently irrational. Period.

Marxism may make for bad economics, but it has far more of a chance of succeeding than economics based on Xenu.

Stop trying to characterize religion as an acceptable basis for rational discourse. It's not. Unsupported claims cannot be used to support unsupported claims.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Zhavric Marxism may make for bad economics, but it has far more of a chance of succeeding than economics based on Xenu.

Why?

Let's say we base our economics argument on the writings of Marx vs. The Book of the All-Knowing Xenu.

There are only two possible sources for the book of Xenu, neither of which is any worse than the source of Marx's writings.

If you are a believer in Xenu (or if Xenu in fact exists), then his book is divine perfection, and so therefore his economic system will be perfect - better than Marx's.

If Xenu is nonexistant or worse a fraud perpetuated by his creators, then the Book of Xenu is the collected thoughts of a human being, no different and no inferior than the collected thoughts of a different human being (Marx).

Your own constant insistence that gods are provably false has trapped you into also accepting that, by necessity, their religious texts are penned by humans, just like any non-religious philosophy text.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Why?

Because if I base a claim on potentially potentially false premise then my claim is potentially true. If I base a claim on a false premise then my claim can only be false (false conclusion) or invalid (a true conclusion based on illogical or untrue premises). Which is better?

I love how you agnosto-theists always try to re-write the rules of logic when I point out how bad your arguments are.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Zhavric Because if I base a claim on potentially potentially false premise then my claim is potentially true. If I base a claim on a false premise then my claim can only be false (false conclusion) or invalid (a true conclusion based on illogical or untrue premises). Which is better?

Non-sequitur. That is not the situation in this case.

If the argument is "the writings of Marx say X" vs. "the Bible says Y", everyone pretty much accepts that the writings of Marx are simply the ruminations of a human being, and at worst this is equal to what the Bible is.

False/true does not enter into judgments of philosophy. If Marx uses a parable to illustrate a point, it does not matter whether the parable is based upon a true story or not.

You are centered on a dichotomy of true/false which in many cases cannot be applied - saying "Marxian economics are good" is neither.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Non-sequitur. That is not the situation in this case.

Yes. It is. Stop trying to dodge & evade. Address the issue or don't debate.

If the argument is "the writings of Marx say X" vs. "the Bible says Y", everyone pretty much accepts that the writings of Marx are simply the ruminations of a human being, and at worst this is equal to what the Bible is. False/true does not enter into judgments of philosophy. If Marx uses a parable to illustrate a point, it does not matter whether the parable is based upon a true story or not. You are centered on a dichotomy of true/false which in many cases cannot be applied - saying "Marxian economics are good" is neither.

That's the longest red herring I've read in minutes.

The bottom line is that Marx is based on reason and logic. Flawed as it may be, it may have a chance of being grounded in something worthwhile. It may be both valid and true. Any conclusion drawn from religious premises is invalid at best. What about this concept is eluding you? Provide any instance and I'll demonstrate the inferiority of the theistic stance in this. In fact, do so in your next post or concede the debate.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric Nope. You're wrong. Basing a decision on something potentially reasonable is superior to basing a decision on something inherently irrational. Period. Marxism may make for bad economics, but it has far more of a chance of succeeding than economics based on Xenu.

What you still fail to understand is how Marxism even defines economic "success."
Marxism doesn't give a damn about the quality of life for people, or the number of products and services we might enjoy. Marxism is about revolution, the rise of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie. In attaining that evolution, Marxism will spout whatever theories or "laws" it needs to galvanize action.

Economic success based on Xenu might be as simple as "whatever happens according to Xenuc methods."

Neither Marxism nor Xenuc methodology has a factual basis. They're ideological worldviews. Marxism has an internal value system: rise of the proletariat good, power of the bourgeoisie bad. Xenuc methodology has a similar system: obedience to Xenu good, disobedience bad.
Both of them are factually baseless, with no evidence that either is "bad" or "good," and quite frankly, neither cares that there is no evidence. They're standards of morality, one being right and the other wrong. They're presumptions.

Stop trying to characterize religion as an acceptable basis for rational discourse. It's not. Unsupported claims cannot be used to support unsupported claims.

Fine! Good! Then goodbye Lockean rights theory (and goodbye Libertarians). Goodbye Marxists. Goodbye every system of thought and philosophy we've ever created in assessing whether something is "good" or "bad," because none of these paradigms of morality are based on empirics.

If you're okay with that conclusion, then we're in agreement.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Zhavric The bottom line is that Marx is based on reason and logic.

False. Any proof of this? Cite a passage from any of Marx's writings that is based on reason and logic.

Oh wait, I'll use your arrogant and absurdist style - Prove it now or you're totally PWNZORED!!!!!

Flawed as it may be, it may have a chance of being grounded in something worthwhile. It may be both valid and true.

It's an idealistic worldview. As Fangrim alluded to, it's not "grounded" in anything except the opinion of the author. As I said, at worst the author of a religious text is a human being, with no more or less worthy an opinion than Marx.

Any conclusion drawn from religious premises is invalid at best.

So you are saying that every word of every religious text is fiction? LOL... ridiculous.

Provide any instance and I'll demonstrate the inferiority of the theistic stance in this. In fact, do so in your next post or concede the debate.

Luke 6:31 - "Do to others as you would have them do to you."

I'm excited to see how you "demonstrate" that the golden rule is inferior.

I'm also excited to see how you demonstrate that any particular worldview is "inferior" to any other, considering that a worldview is merely someone's own perspective.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: tivodan1116 False. Any proof of this?

Shifting the burden of proof. Marx isn't based on supernatural hogwash and is therefor superior to religion.

Luke 6:31 - "Do to others as you would have them do to you."

The golden rule. Excellent example. It was stated by many individuals prior to being adopted into the NT. Again, what makes more sense? We should be nice to other people because that's desirable to other people... or... we should be nice to other people because a cosmic jewish zombie wants us to be nice to other people? This is an example of invalid reasoning yielding a conclusion we already knew to be true.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim What you still fail to understand is how Marxism even defines economic "success."

Doesn't matter. Marxism may be false, but since it's not based on unsupported folklore (like religion) it at least has a chance of being true. Stop evading and tossing out red herrings.

Fine! Good! Then goodbye Lockean rights theory (and goodbye Libertarians).

Oh, FFS Fangrim. Enough of your false analogies. Are Lockean rights based on the alleged whims of a cosmic Jewish zombie? No? Then they're superior to religion. Period.

I know it's me. I know that admitting I'm right is (for you and Tivodan) like taking your clothes off, but it's time to stop coming up with silly evasions and just concede the point.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric Oh, FFS Fangrim. Enough of your false analogies. Are Lockean rights based on the alleged whims of a cosmic Jewish zombie? No? Then they're superior to religion. Period. I know it's me. I know that admitting I'm right is (for you and Tivodan) like taking your clothes off, but it's time to stop coming up with silly evasions and just concede the point.

CHALLENGE:

Show me why, specifically, that the claim of Jesus' resurrection is any more unsupported than the claim that we have natural rights.

UNSUPPORTED, mind you, does NOT mean you are evaluating evidence AGAINST the claim. You are evaluating the amount of evidence FOR it.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim CHALLENGE: Show me why, specifically, that the claim of Jesus' resurrection is any more unsupported than the claim that we have natural rights.

People coming back from the dead is impossible. People having natural rights is possible. Why are you fumbling with this concept?

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric People coming back from the dead is impossible. People having natural rights is possible. Why are you fumbling with this concept?

Warrants for that latter claim?

I'd ask for them for the former as well, but you'd laugh and "/thread over."

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim Warrants for that latter claim?

You've GOT to be kidding me.

Guys, you have to knock this off. You can't argue so dishonestly. You just can't. This is ridiculous. I know you all hate my guts and would gladly say the opposite of whatever I claim, but you have to accept that I know what the hell I'm talking about... and in this case, the stuff I'm talking about is really basic. Religion is based on unsupported claims and unsupported claims can't be used to evidence other claims. No amount of armchair philosophy is going to change that for you. No amount of attempts to muddy the water is going to turn "people come back from the dead" into a legitimate claim. This "well, how do you know 1+1 DOESN'T equal 3???" crap ends here.

[Fangrim]

Support your claim that natural rights are possible or concede the debate.


Elsewise, it's as unsupported a claim as any religion.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim Support your claim that natural rights are possible or concede the debate. Elsewise, it's as unsupported a claim as any religion.

Natural rights are an idea. Ideas are thoughts possesed by humans.
Which of the bolded words do you need more evidence for? Which do part do you think is on par with "cosmic jew coming back from the dead"?

Honestly, Fangrim, I know you think it's terribly clever to keep asking me to support the status quo. It's not. It's akin to asking "prove 1+1 DOESN'T equal 3 or else 1+1=3 is just as acceptable as 1+1=2."

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric Natural rights are an idea. Ideas are thoughts possesed by humans.

...
Do you need me to define natural rights? Because it looks like you have no idea what the !@#$ you're talking about. You sound like Thomas freaking Aquinas.

Natural rights philosophy, an entire worldview upon which Western civilization is based, hinges on the claim that natural rights exist. It's not sufficient to say that natural rights "exist" as a proposed concept (else gods and every phantasm of our dreams and thoughts exist as well); rights philosophy requires that they exist regardless of whether or not man understood that they did.

Quote by: Wikipedia The concept of a natural right can be contrasted with the concept of a legal right: A natural right is one that is claimed to exist even when it is not enforced by the government or society as a whole, while a legal right is a right specifically created by the government or society, for the benefit of its members.

Even if an entire society refused to recognize the natural right to life, natural law philosophy claims that the natural right would exist any way.

So no, Zhavric, it's not enough to say that human beings came up with the concept that natural rights might exist. An idea that natural rights exist does not constitute its existence, so your half-assed take on "existence" won't work here.

Further, the human capacity to come up with the idea that natural rights exist does not show that natural rights are possible, and certainly not that they exist, lest every idea that humans have ever come up with (including, in your view, gods) is possible.


Try again.

[Zhavric]

Philosophy is based on real world elements, logic, evidence, and reason. Religion isn't.

So, for the second time...

Quote by: Zhavric Natural rights are an idea. Ideas are thoughts possesed by humans. Which of the bolded words do you need more evidence for? Which do part do you think is on par with "cosmic jew coming back from the dead"? "