Christians=Liars?

[Prometheus]

Of course you hit the nail on the head. ::High Five::

Anyway, we'll see what Starboy has to say when he logs on.

5 bucks says that you are a dishonest liar too.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus Instead of viewing entire religions as the smallest unit of belief, look at the individual tenents. Think of religions like venn diograms. They overlap in many spots. The differences don't make them false. You are using a false dilema fallacy by implying that one fault, or shared fault makes all fase.

None of this has anything to do with my claim. You can cherry pick all you like and still practice a double standard. It is not the claims you may discard that make you dishonest it is how you justify the claims you decide to keep vs. the claims you reject. And it doesn't matter if the claims you reject are part of a single religion or many religions.

I had a calculus class where on one of the assignments, 5 of the problems had incorrect answers in the back of the book. I realized these errors and moved on. According to your logic, I should disregard the entire class, because if I accept it then I am dishonest. Your logic also says that I should also disregard all other textbooks that share *any* of the same kowledge. The fallacy you use here, is that one set of beliefs can falsify andother set, merely by sharing a tenent. This is not logical.

What would have been dishonest was to hand in the answers that were in the back of the book whether you thought they were wrong or right. You are supposed to do your own dang work! And where in the world do you get that I am saying that one should disregard text books because they share the same knowledge. It is not the knowledge they share that opens up one or another book to being suspect, it is the knowledge they do not share that causes concern. I have made this point several times now. What is going on? Are you having trouble with comprehension? Why don't you just ask simple questions? Till you can at least state my claims and positions with some kind of understanding and accuracy there is no point in trying to make any arguments. You do not have to agree with it but at least you will then be able to make an honest argument since you will not be trying to argue from ignorance as if it were knowledge.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: FIFI *laugh* one of these days, someones going to lock you in a box and let you two duke it out. But back on the subject, STARBOY , who claims that to accept one religion, you must accept them all (or deny all) religion??? I don't understand how that works, for the very act of dedicating yourself to one religion is denying others "therories / truths (etc, etc, etc!) !

That is part of my point. There is no way that one can honestly accept one supernatural religion and reject the rest.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus Just a personal question Starboy, if you don't mind. Do you have any friends who are religious? And if so, do you call them liars to their faces?

I do not have any friends that are religious. All of my friends are atheists or agnostics. I run in scientifically minded crowds. We do not live in the demon haunted world of the Bronze Age.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus Of course you hit the nail on the head. ::High Five:: Anyway, we'll see what Starboy has to say when he logs on. 5 bucks says that you are a dishonest liar too.

Prometheus, stop baiting and start debating.

Starboy

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Starboy None of this has anything to do with my claim. You can cherry pick all you like and still practice a double standard. Starboy

Yes, but what I have demonstrated is that religion in not inherently dishonest. I can be true, but many practice it in the manner I described which is totally honest. On that basis you should stop throwing around the "D" word every time you debate religion

It is not the claims you may discard that make you dishonest it is how you justify the claims you decide to keep vs. the claims you reject. And it doesn't matter if the claims you reject are part of a single religion or many religions.

There is nothing dishones about saying "I believe A and believe that B is false". That is a mere statement of belief - it cannot be false.

What would have been dishonest was to hand in the answers that were in the back of the book whether you thought they were wrong or right. You are supposed to do your own dang work!

Yet again, you manage to totally miss the point of a good and coherant analogy.

Are you having trouble with comprehension? You do not have to agree with it but at least you will then be able to make an honest argument since you will not be trying to argue from ignorance as if it were knowledge.

...and instead of strengthing your arguments, you just get more derisive.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Starboy I do not have any friends that are religious. All of my friends are atheists or agnostics. I run in scientifically minded crowds. We do not live in the demon haunted world of the Bronze Age. Starboy

You just gotta love that elitist, condesending, and arrogant attitide don't ya'?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus Ok, lets try to simplify this debate. The overal theme seems to be wheather or not religions are inherently dishonest. Lets look at religion is a simple form. Let's say that I beleive that Star Wars actually exists. I, for one reason or another, think that Luke Skywalker actually lives. I can say that I beleive him to exist. That is a fact. When I describe what I believe, you cannot call it a lie because I define what I believe. The second question is wheather my beliefs are dishonest. The belief in the reality of Star Wars cannot be proved false (not that this is saying much - the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot can't be proved false either), so there is a possibility that it is true. Even if we somehow knew the statement "Luke Skywalker lives" was a lie - the statement "I believe Luke Skywalker lives can never be a lie. Now I have not even addressed how I came to believe that Star Wars is real. It is irrelevant. Maybe a shimmering person decended from the sky to tell me, maybe a voice spoke in my head, maybe I was just high. It dosen't matter how I got the belief. If I hold the belief I can state as much without dishonesty.

This is the crux of the matter. My argument is not about the reality of the claims themselves but how a person deals with those claims as opposed to all other claims. If he came to believe that Skywaker was real because there was an action figure but he refuses to believe in Zeus even though there is a Zeus action figure than that is dishonest. Either believe in both Zeus and Skywaker or believe in neither. I have repeated this now at least a dozen times. Is there any way in the world that you can indicate that you understand the point even if you do not agree with it? I am beginning to think that you are just not capable of comprehending this concept.

The next matter, is how how you can hold a belief in exclusion of others that are equally valid. It is probably safe to say that Star Treck and Star Wars have the same probability, and evidance for being true. The question is wheather it is honest to exclude a belief of Star Treck, while accepting a belief in Star Wars. It is honest, because you can hold a belief that Star Trak is false. Again, you can state that honestly because you define the truth of that. It is totally honest to say "I believe that Star Wars is real and that Star Treck is false". There is no lie there.

Again you miss the point. This has nothing to do with how you define “truth”. It has to do with practicing a double standard. However you decide what “truth” may be you must apply it to both Star Trek and Star Wars. If it works for both then you must consider both to be “true”. It is about practicing a double standard. Practicing a double standard is inherently dishonest.

Again, for the issue of honesty, the reason for the belief is not important, because the statement of a belief cannot be dishonest (unless of course you are professing a belief you don't hold). I can make all of these statements without being dishonest: "I believe that God exists" "I believe that Jesus lives" "I believe in an afterlife" "I believe that my state in the afterlife is contingant on keeping commandments" "I believe that all statements contradicting the above beliefs are false" and on and on... None of those statements are lies. (1)You can say that I have no proof. You are right. (2)You can say that it is silly to hold those beliefs. That is a pervectly valid opinion. (3)You can challenge the logic of those beliefs. It is worth debating. But you cannot bypass discussion of the above points by simply dismissing them as "dishonest".

Again you miss the point. This is not about the statements it is about your standards for evaluating statements and practicing a double standard when you do it. That is what is dishonest.

So in the case of supernatural religion the supernatural claims are not as important as how you apply your standards to evaluate those claims, and not only the claims you choose to accept but to those that you choose to reject. If you hold one standard of evaluation for what you have decided to accept and you hold what you have decided to reject to a different standard then that is a double standard.

I am afraid that I can’t put it any more simply than that. If you cannot get it then there is no point in going any further with this discussion. I am trying to have a civil debate with you but the topic appears to be just far too disturbing for you.

Starboy

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Starboy That is part of my point. There is no way that one can honestly accept one supernatural religion and reject the rest. Starboy

This is one of your biggest fallacies. This is the false dilema fallacy. You force it to either extreme. Since many religions tenents are contradictary, the religiouis person picks a set to believe. This may be illogical, and unprovable, but it is not dishonest.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus You just gotta love that elitist, condesending, and arrogant attitide don't ya'?

Are you interested in debating?

Starboy

[Prometheus]

Starboy This is the crux of the matter. My argument is not about the reality of the claims themselves but how a person deals with those claims as opposed to all other claims. If he came to believe that Skywaker was real because there was an action figure but he refuses to believe in Zeus even though there is a Zeus action figure than that is dishonest. Either believe in both Zeus and Skywaker or believe in neither. I have repeated this now at least a dozen times. Is there any way in the world that you can indicate that you understand the point even if you do not agree with it? I am beginning to think that you are just not capable of comprehending this concept.

There is the false dilema fallacy again. I can say:

"I believe in Luke Skywalker is real and I believe that Zues is not real"

That is a simple statement of belief, and cannot be a lie. The beliefs can be false, but saying that you believe it is true.

[Prometheus]

"I believe that God exists" "I believe that Jesus lives" "I believe in an afterlife" "I believe that my state in the afterlife is contingant on keeping commandments" "I believe that all statements contradicting the above beliefs are false"

The above is a very small religious belief system, but it does outline a religion. Where is the lie? It is completely a statement of beliefs. If I do in fact believe them, then I have told the truth.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus This is one of your biggest fallacies. This is the false dilema fallacy. You force it to either extreme. Since many religions tenents are contradictary, the religiouis person picks a set to believe. This may be illogical, and unprovable, but it is not dishonest.

Actually I am not forcing anything to any extreme. All I claim is that it is impossible to accept one supernatural religion and reject the rest without practicing a double standard. I am going to repeat this again for your benifit. My claim is that the way the belief was come by as opposed to other beliefs that are rejected is what makes it dishonest. When you do this it is a double standard. Double standards are dishonest. Please try to comprehend this if not agree with it before you respond again. What you are doing is piss poor debate.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus There is the false dilema fallacy again. I can say: "I believe in Luke Skywalker is real and I believe that Zues is not real" That is a simple statement of belief, and cannot be a lie. The beliefs can be false, but saying that you believe it is true.

This is very tiresome. It is not the claims, it is how you have decided to accept and reject one claim verses the other. If you use two different standards then that is dishonest.

Starboy

[Prometheus]

Starboy All I claim is that it is impossible to accept one supernatural religion and reject the rest without practicing a double standard.

I get this, and it is false. You are forcing the issue to a false extreme. I can believe what I will. And claim that belief with honesty.


Please respond to post #52 explicitly.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus The above is a very small religious belief system, but it does outline a religion. Where is the lie? It is completely a statement of beliefs. If I do in fact believe them, then I have told the truth.

Prometheus, what do you hope to gain by completely ignoring my claims, points and arguments. If you want to talk about fallicies, have you ever heard of the strawman fallicy. If you do not stop presenting your own strawman of my claims and arguments and then knocking them down there will be no point in continuing this debate.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus I get this, and it is false. You are forcing the issue to a false extreme. I can believe what I will. And claim that belief with honesty. Please respond to post #52 explicitly.

You just don't get it. It is not about the claims. Repeat after me. It is not about the claims. It is about the standards you apply to the claims that you accept and those that you reject. If you use one standard to accept and a different standard to reject then that is a double standard and it is dishonest.

Starboy

[Gorgo]

Starboy, since there is no one really attempting to understand what you're saying, lte me break in and ask, isn't more than just religion here? I mean, shouldn't those who believe in god(s) just believe in everything and have faith in everything? Even completely obvious conflicting or terribly wrong information? Since what seems to be important to them is to "have faith" and believe? If they're skeptical about anything at all, isn't that, to take your idea further, dishonest?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus This is one of your biggest fallacies. This is the false dilema fallacy. You force it to either extreme. Since many religions tenents are contradictary, the religiouis person picks a set to believe. This may be illogical, and unprovable, but it is not dishonest.

Do you even know what the false dilemma fallacy is?

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Gorgo Starboy, since there is no one really attempting to understand what you're saying, lte me break in and ask, isn't more than just religion here? I mean, shouldn't those who believe in god(s) just believe in everything and have faith in everything? Even completely obvious conflicting or terribly wrong information? Since what seems to be important to them is to "have faith" and believe? If they're skeptical about anything at all, isn't that, to take your idea further, dishonest?

Yes that is the point. If you claim that the standard of acceptance of religion A is faith and practitioners of B also claim their standard of acceptance is faith and you use faith as a standard of acceptance and you do not then accept both A and B then that is dishonest.

What layers the dishonesty even further is that for the most part in just about every other aspect of their lives they would not consider faith to be an acceptable standard for anything.

The supernatural religious are masters of the double standard. But then again they have to be. The only way to support a belief in the supernatural in this day and age is by way of a double standard.

Starboy