Does religion count as a valid argument?

[Fangrim]

Don't resort to mindlessly repeating something I've already refuted. If you have issue with my refutation, then show me a rebuttal!

You have one more post before you concede the point that the existence of natural rights is as unsubstantiated a claim as "cosmic jewish zombies," "Xenu," or religion in general.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Halofan48 I'm interested to know what people think about this. In debates that don't directly involve religion, does using religious quotes count as a valid argument for that debate? Like does a religious argument have valid standing in a debate about abortion, rights, or politics if they do not involve religion as part of the debate. example of debates not on religion: abortion, political debates not involving religion, legalization of illegal drugs. examples of debates involving religion: Creationism vs. Evolution, Atheists...they go to hell, Why to believe. Just for people who are a bit confused, do you think arguments based on religion (like saying: "You can't do this because it's against god's will") in debates that are not on religion (see above) count as valid arguments? What do you think?

Most people argue from the perspective of their own world view. For many, that world view is a religious one. Since, again for many, religion involves every area of life, arguing from the perspective of a religious world view is entirely valid.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim Don't resort to mindlessly repeating something I've already refuted.

Don't lie. You haven't refuted anything. You're doing what you usually do. You're evading the issue because you can't bear to admit that I'm right.

[Fangrim]

I've learned a lot of things from you. So, as you would put it:

Concession accepted.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim I've learned a lot of things from you.

No. You haven't. You haven't learned to concede when your opponent is right. You haven't learned that unsupported claims can't be used to support other claims. You haven't learned that logic and reason must be applied to all things uniformly. You haven't learned that using special pleadings is a fallacy. You haven't learned to address the actual debate being made and to stop evading arguments more tenable than your own.

Worst of all, you haven't learned that attempting to sound clever when you've had your argument thrashed just makes you sound like a sore loser.

So, do yourself a favor and learn from your defeat here.

[Fangrim]

Zhavric, just accept that you lost and get over it. You tried to prove something that you couldn't handle, and of course you failed.

You couldn't get over repeating the fact that unsupported claims "can't" be used to support other claims when that's exactly what I've been saying this entire time, but with one important caveat: unsupported claims can still be used to support other claims when both parties accept their application (keep reading for examples)

What you don't seem to understand is that religious argumentation is no different in this sense than any other philosophy, worldview, or ideology that prescribes certain "truths" without a basis in reality. As I said earlier:

[If we hold to your statement without my caveat], [g]oodbye 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 want to invalidate Lockean rights theory, utilitarianism, religious argumentation, and any other "good-bad" dichotomy all at once, even in discussion between fellow natural law supporters and utilitarians, then alright.
I've always found natural rights theory to be a stupid concept anyway.

[ShadowFox]

Ok, for the sake of debate, lets say the argument is something like: "you can/can't do this because its god will that you do/don't" or something along those general lines, and keep in mind, i'm talking about using this argument OUTSIDE debates involving religion.

I say no. It's like me going "You can't do this because it's against my dad's/ boss'/ friend's will" you'd likely just go "ya right" and disregard it as an argument.

[rez]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Let's say we base our economics argument on the writings of Marx vs. The Book of the All-Knowing Xenu.

Sure fine, let's do it. "Economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services." Economics has existed for a very long time in human history and has been recorded and analyzed through out its time. People know the history of how economics work, learned from the past, and have created future theories based on it. In fact, you can even take a class in college and learn some formulas.

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

Considering the fact that suggesting that Xenu would be a misleading lie would be one thing wrong about that source. Since the economy is always changing, would Xenu update it constantly? Would Xenu teach people and give them a degree in economy? From the trends of religion would be say no, it wouldnt. Holy writtings never change, they are written in stone forever because Xenu's word is so perfect that everything that was said has already been convered.

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.

And then you have this little thing called actually delievering the goods you speak of. If Xenu's exconomic system is divine perfection, then show me one of his formulas that magically make everything work....Actually deliever the goods you speak of...you can't so it leads us to the second option,

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).

And yet a human being that tried to sum up all the complicated information about the economy in ONE book, whereas, we need thousands of books to fully understand the complexities that exist in economics.

You can't just say it was divinely inspired. In a subject that is constructed under the basis of science you either put up or you shutup.

Quote by: Fangrim The existence of natural rights is the most unsupported claim you will ever find.

WRONG. Natural rights are based on the fundamental principles of life and the way it works together in its habitat. It is based on observation.

The fact is religion is based on the supernatural, something that does not exist in nature. Something that can not be studied or observed. That is why people separated the magical thinking from the rational thinking. You don't want society to base reality around the supernatural because it does not exist.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: rez WRONG. Natural rights are based on the fundamental principles of life and the way it works together in its habitat. It is based on observation.

What observations, and of what fundamental principles?

And no is-ought fallacies, by the way. The occurrence of a phenomena does not indicate we should protect or support it.

[Zhavric]

Unless you have something to add to your earlier argument that challenges my refutation, then this thread is over. All you're doing now is attempting to get in the last word to obfuscate the fact that your reasoning is untenable. PM me if you genuinely want to continue, otherwise, go ahead and make some last attempt at whit. I care not, nor will I read it. You lost.

/thread

[NDOC]

Quote by: Zhavric Unless you have something to add to your earlier argument that challenges my refutation, then this thread is over. All you're doing now is attempting to get in the last word to obfuscate the fact that your reasoning is untenable. PM me if you genuinely want to continue, otherwise, go ahead and make some last attempt at whit. I care not, nor will I read it. You lost. /thread

Wow...them was som big werds.......you understands wat they means

[NDOC]

Joking aside, i think it does if you believe in it.

[ShadowFox]

Joking aside, i think it does if you believe in it.

So, if you are religious, and you make an argument like "it's god's will", it counts as valid. Perhaps to yourself but not to others.

Or do you mean that the argument "it's god's will" will be accepted by other religious people? Than, what if someone with a different or the same religion thinks it isn't gods will?

Or do you mean that a religious argument is accurate if someone your debating against accepts it as accurate? Than what about other people who might also be debating who don't find as a valid argument?

Or do you mean something else?

So what will it be? Option 1, Option 2, Option 3, or Option 4?

seriously though, which is it?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: NDOC Joking aside, i think it does if you believe in it.

Okay.

Do you have a loved one struggling with mental illness?

Then according to Scientology, you shouldn't give them any sort of medication even if could treat or cure their ailment. Think that's a good idea?

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric Okay. Do you have a loved one struggling with mental illness? Then according to Scientology, you shouldn't give them any sort of medication even if could treat or cure their ailment. Think that's a good idea?

Warrant?

Not that I'm skeptical. It's just that the site you gave does not say anything about Scientology's rationale for not taking medication other than something about drug companies.