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
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]Orrex
(63,086 posts)68. That was not my statement
You stated that no one is convinced of revelation. That is demonstrably wrong.
No, what I stated is this:
For everyone who didn't receive the revelation, revelation is hearsay and shouldn't be considered persuasive.
andBut when we're talking about the existence of an immaterial entity that no one can demonstrate, than the majority opinion is no more persuasive than one crackpot wearing a hair shirt in a cave somewhere.
And the point stands. I'm not claiming that no one believes it; I'm pointing out that the testimony of a "revelation recipient" isn't rationally persuasive. At some point the audience must throw up its collective hands and say "I believe."
Since you immediately mischaracterize my opinion, you are in no position to lecture anyone about the nature of logical fallacies, even if you know how to Google the Latin terminology.
Validity is simply a synonym for evidence.
According to whom? Because it's certainly not a synonym in the context of the question.
And is equally inapt. Maybe that's why no one is answering your question.
Well, I'll credit you for offering a novel evasion, but it's still intellectually dishonest. If for some reason you're unhappy with the term "validity," then maybe we can go with "truth" or "reality" instead. How do you assess the truth or reality of any supernatural claim in the absence of evidence?
The question is why does someone accept it. One answer is that it's coherent. Accepting the underpinning premise is super-natural, what follows is internal consistency and comportment with what are generally considered good human values.
How do you find it to be coherent? Because it appeals to non-verifiable magic and can't be falsified? That's not rational, which is my point. Accepting something as true, and using it as a cornerstone of one's morality despite an utter lack of evidence that it exists, is no different from simply making something up out of thin air and pretending that it's true. Are we to accept it simply because it's internally consistent? If so, then I refer you to the previously cited works of Tolkien and the internally consistent mythology of Bigfoot and invite you to base your morality on these venerable traditions.
If you want to keep this going, keep your personal remarks to yourself.
I've made no personal remarks, other than to preemptively pardon you for failing to answer a simple question. If you can't handle straightforward questions about belief, then perhaps we should examine this more closely.
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