Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Can You Prove It Didn't Happen? [View all]Silent3
(15,178 posts)53. "no one can reason his or her way to this"
Which brings up exactly what I've been asking: What distinguishes religious belief from imagination and fantasy?
The history of religions almost all have their seeds in people who have had profound religious experiences in which it is said God has revealed himself or herself (depending on the tradition). Start with the burning bush, the Pentecost, Paul's blindness, the banyan tree or hundreds of other examples.
Appeal to authority.
Why should anyone believe in these revelations that other people claim? Especially when many of these accounts are very far from first-hand and have been exposed to many generations of opportunity for distortion and deliberate tampering? Especially when, despite claims of commonality, there's also plenty of disagreement and contradiction?
Scoff or not...
I'm not seeing any good reason to go with the "not" option yet.
...these messages have resonated with billions of humans over thousands of years and there is a coherence and commonality to most of these religions.
Argmentum ad populum.
Shared culture and shared biology easily explain those commonalities, in much the same way commonalities arise in alien abduction stories, with many people tapping into the same shared culture. That the revelations people either have themselves, or choose to believe other people have had, are best predicted by where a person grows up and what his or her parents believe further discredits any need to reach for a supernatural agency to explain the supposed "coherence and commonality" -- not to mention all of the incoherence and lack of commonality that's also being conveniently ignored.
And the basic message is not bad. Quite the contrary.
Appeal to consequences.
Not that there aren't a whole lot of bad messages and bad consequences mixed in too -- once again conveniently ignored.
But to overlook this ancient human activity and dismiss it on the ground it can not be found in a high school lab book is ignoring something vast for the most trivial of reasons.
I don't overlook it at all. I look at it quite closely, and find it lacking for reasons that go well beyond any "high school lab book". The scientific method is hardly restricted to test tubes and microscopes. Above all else, the scientific method is about systematically making sure we aren't fooling ourselves. It's about setting up guidelines to root out personal bias and self-delusion.
I do not consider the lack of such a system in religion to be "the most trivial of reasons".
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
171 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
So when Person A claims Bigfoot exists, and Person B claims that there's no good evidence...
Silent3
Jan 2015
#5
If human thought is inadequate for dealing with proof and comparision of supernatural claims...
Silent3
Jan 2015
#9
No, ignoring the special pleading of those who need special pleading for their supernatural...
Silent3
Jan 2015
#35
"You would only counter each offered experiment with reasons why that experiment was inadequate"
rug
Jan 2015
#63
It appears obvious that honest and rational discourse is impossible with him.
cleanhippie
Jan 2015
#84
I think all people of average or better intelligence who believe religious dogma .....
tradewinds
Jan 2015
#101
ok. i hope no one alerts on it and if they do I hope it is not hidden on my account.
hrmjustin
Jan 2015
#114
Then tell me exactly how you confirm one supernatural phenomenon but would reject another
Orrex
Jan 2015
#134
Sure I can but if you are trying to prove that I am delusional or irrational, then I have no
hrmjustin
Jan 2015
#142
Nothing in this discussion indicates that you're willing to do so (edited for typo)
Orrex
Jan 2015
#150
Since I have answered the question and you have nothing else I wish you a pleasant evening.
hrmjustin
Jan 2015
#161
Let's start with evidence that a supreme supernatural being is required to exist at all.
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2015
#18
You and Orrex both have demonstarted how it is impossible to have an honest and rational
cleanhippie
Jan 2015
#83
Of all the monkey-shit-flinging fights we've had, I think *this* was the one that finally got
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2015
#85
Lol. I'm not. I'm simply speaking in generalities about no one in particular.
cleanhippie
Jan 2015
#92
OR, sometimes the issue is something you don't want to address, because it invalidates
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2015
#119
It is a means to examine one class of actual material evidence that could establish that there must
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2015
#125
If you're referring to cour comments to me, it takes two to have an honest discussion.
rug
Jan 2015
#93
The premise is not about proving or disproving God. It's about a logical fallacy.
DetlefK
Jan 2015
#30
It seems there are about 40 replies I can't see. Somebody must have had an upset.
Warren Stupidity
Jan 2015
#45
Why don't you rebut the argument in your last pararagraph instead of characterizing it?
rug
Jan 2015
#29
As I can't see 116 of those replies I can only guess at the hot mess.
Warren Stupidity
Jan 2015
#151