Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[JayUtah]

I provided all religious proofs which he is persistently disputing.

You provided only the proof that your religion claims a thing. You didn't provide proof that the claim is true. This is what I mean when I say you don't understand the difference between a claim and evidence. The standard of proof for a religion's allegation of fact -- anyone's allegation of fact, really -- is not simply that the allegation exists. Documenting where the allegation was made does not prove it to be true. Noting that it is widely believed does not prove it to be true. Pointing to extant circumstances that serve as the setting for the allegation does not prove it to be true.

You don't know what proof is. That's a big problem with your efforts in this forum.

He is also disputing all other religions.

The subject of other religions came up only because you invoked it.

I pointed out earlier, just as I have repeated in the above section, that the standard of proof for a proposition must necessarily be more that simply that the proposition was stated. We often vary the standard of proof depending on what's at stake. But religions generally have a bigger problem meeting a reasonable standard of proof because they make claims with little prima facie plausibility. I said this especially in contrast to claims from ordinary history, which tend to be more prima facie plausible. We use that degree of plausibility to decide what a rational standard of proof should be, and you were trying to argue that history succeeds where religion fails because of anti-religious bias.

You were essentially trying to argue that the standard of proof for religious claims should be lowered such that religious claims have a success rate similar to historical claims. That begs the question that they should. Your argument culminated in an attempt at reductio ad absurdum, saying that with a standard of proof so high, no religion could possibly achieve reasonable proof of truthfulness. Your shock at my answer is just the result of you begging the question that some should be able to achieve it.

The fact that no religion can prove itself to be true via purely rational means is a problem with the nature of religion. You're trying to make it a problem with the means used to test truth.

Therefore he has burden of proof to prove his counter claim for it...

No, a disputation of your affirmative claim is not a counterclaim that reverses the burden of proof. You made certain specific claims about the Jain religion. You claimed it derived from nature. You claimed it was "true." You may also have claimed it was scientifically valid. If you are presenting these statements to a skeptic audience, you bear the burden of proof to show -- by testable evidence -- that each of those statements is true. That's what it means to reason.

Someone who expresses disbelief in your statements doesn't acquire the burden of proof to refute them. He is the person you must convince with evidence. And you tried. You tried to show examples from nature that seemed to show your religion reflected natural conditions. But you committed the fallacy of what we call Cherry-Picking, or accepting as valid only the evidence that agreed with what you already believed. Your critics showed you facts from nature that contradicted the religion claimed. You explicitly disregarded it, explicitly on the basis that it doesn't fit your religion. When you ignore facts that dispute your claims, your critics can reasonably conclude that your claim does not stand. After that exercise, it is appropriate to say, "Jainism is not based on nature."

Regarding your claim that Jainism is some universal or prototypical religion (or that such a religion, if it existed, would materially resemble Jainism), we held a conversation in which it was revealed that you really don't know much about the different religions of the world. Given that the easily-seen practices and beliefs of different religions exhibit great variety, it is unlikely that there is one prototypical religion from which they all derived, and even less likely that if such a one existed, it would resemble Jainism. After that exercise, it is appropriate to say, "Jainism is not a prototypical or universal religion."

We can make a similar analysis of your claim (vaguely) that Jainism is compatible with science.

When your critics reach a conclusion that -- after obtaining, testing, and discussing the pertinent evidence -- negates your affirmative claims, that does not reverse the burden of proof. It merely notes that you have failed to prove your case.

...and other religions.

Whether some other religion is true or not doesn't affect whether yours is true.

 

[Dancing David]

All,
I am posting it also hear which I posted in OP of my other topic Differance...... Pls follow:
"
Please maintain dignity of all religions since real religion should not be odd."

That does not shift the burden of proof from you, demonstrate you claims about Jainism

 

[bruto]

Kumar, for a person who so depends on Wikipedia for answers when it's convenient, you certainly are not very diligent in finding out things for yourself.

The Wikipedia article on the fallacy of "Begging the Question."

It took me about 20 seconds to look this up, including typing time.

If you can't be reasonable, at least don't be lazy.

 

[Peregrinus]

One huge impediment for me is Kumar's rather odd use of the term "odd." Context is of little help.

 

[bruto]

One huge impediment for me is Kumar's rather odd use of the term "odd." Context is of little help.

Yes, to those of us who use English in more usual fashion, one might even remark that it's odd.

 

[Kumar]

The religious people who practiced those abhorrent practices certainly thought so. For hundreds of years, for example, chattel slavery was justified within and without religion by arguments that cherry-picked evidence and begged a number of questions to appear to support a conclusion that the enslaved were naturally or inherently inferior and thus merited their station.

The lesson we learned from this is that just because a religion speaks well of itself and purports to be pure or natural doesn't mean it really is.

Yes, few faiths may opt one part of nature ignoring other. Social progression should have brought civility, morality, humanity, peace, non-violence etc. on one side and serious war tools, more contradictions, selfish interests, ego, greed, luxury,disparities on other side. Both Pros & cons can be their in secondary naturalities/acquisitions as these are not absolute.

 

[Kumar]

He didn't. Enough nonsense has been attributed to him that there is a cottage industry among students of his work to vet those allegations. Einstein is not the only victim of misattribution, of course. .

It is due to your above assessment about a well respected scientist(so science also), I insist on A&F basis. Yes He was not godlike absolute, was,is,will also not be. Therefore we also need to use our inherent, instinct omniscient understandings in any secondary understanding. Science can not be A&F, it is well anticipated here, so it can not be the A&F basis. Quite logical. What Eisstein or other celebrity said or not is not so important, what sense that saying make logically to us is important. Therefore I occasionally say, base sense not wards.

 

[JayUtah]

I insist on A&F basis.

You can "insist" on whatever you want. That doesn't make it rational.

What Eisstein or other celebrity said or not is not so important...

You thought it was important when you thought it was an authentic quote.

what sense that saying make logically to us is important. Therefore I occasionally say, base sense not wards.

No, quote has no value unless it was said by the person you allege. Its significance and authority in an argument depends on the stature of the person who said it. Without that, all you have is an anonymous opinion that Jainism is scientific. What we have discovered, however, is that Jain authors and scholars are not above lying in order to evangelize. Are you also a liar?

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, few faiths may opt one part of nature ignoring other. Social progression should have brought civility, morality, humanity, peace, non-violence etc. on one side and serious war tools, more contradictions, selfish interests, ego, greed, luxury,disparities on other side. Both Pros & cons can be their in secondary naturalities/acquisitions as these are not absolute.

Your argument was that religion should be considered always to provide benefits. You were presented with counterexamples. Now you are saying religion has good and bad elements. That concedes your claim. If religions are not universally beneficial, then you have the burden to prove yours is one of the good ones. You don't get to rely anymore on the categorical argument that you have conceded.

 

[Kumar]

No, this is known as the Slippery Slope fallacy. You commit this fallacy when you argue that even one allowance of an unfavorable condition will inevitably lead to a situation that would arise if the allowance were taken to absurd lengths.

Rational skepticism does not embrace unreasonable doubt.

One allowance may not be unfavorable condition, its addiction is unfavorable condition. Basis of toxicity is quantity not quality. It is nature of modern human beings to get addicted to any undue exposure which look good to him. Excess of everything is said to be bad---may it be on either side. In most cases, when truth become irrational very difficult to understand and leave. One can only understand after such irrationality/addiction when it is fully encased. Otherwise if addiction would have been so easy to leave, it would had not considered odd.

As we discussed, you have this attitude because you do not understand how statistical reasoning works.

I know and discussed a lot on statistical vs practical reasoning. Many agents still fail or even show serious fatal effects on field/practical applications inspite of fact, so preferred by you statistical reasoning was much existing. Ef failed medicines, one DBI.

No, imposing idiotically unreasonable standards of proof on your critics does not allow you to escape facts. Further, you apply your standard of proof only to your critics, not to yourself. You are evidently a Jain, and you evidently believe most things that have been told to you about Jainism. However when I pointed out that the history of you religion -- as with the histories of most religions -- documents schisms and differences of interpretation, you lay those aside as if they had no consequence. You tell us that even with the doubt and disagreement produced by schism in the faith, it's still probably true enough to believe it. You're willing to allow an inductive leap when it comes to your own beliefs, but you disallow it for your critics' arguments. Thats special pleading, which is another fallacy.

You claim your argument is logical. I've shown you in this post two examples of common fallacies that you've committed in making your argument. Therefore your argument is not logically correct.

Fact has different meaning. It should be A&F. Both theory and practical were studied in science, theory only is not A&F.

 

[JayUtah]

One allowance...

All you did is repeat the argument I refuted. Stop just banging away at the keyboard and read what's being written.

Fact has different meaning. It should be A&F. Both theory and practical were studied in science, theory only is not A&F.

No, that is not how science works. Are you a scientist? I expect an answer to this question.

I have already shown you the error in imposing a one-sided absolute burden of proof only on your critics. You clearly cannot address it; you're just repeating your demand.

 

[Kumar]

Clearly you don't understand it, because it's the central fallacy that dooms your argument.

Be careful in your research, however, because the phrase "begging the question" is commonly (but incorrectly) used in colloquial English to mean simply to raise a question. If, for example, the trains aren't running some day and you have someplace to be, you could, in English, say, "The trains aren't running. That begs the question of how I'm going to get to work." This is not the usage we're talking about here.

In the vernacular of discussing principles of logic in English, the word "question" doesn't necessarily mean an interrogative statement. The "question" can mean simply one of the propositions under discussion. The actual question, if any, would be whether that proposition is true or false.

In logic, to beg the proposition (or question) means to assume it's true without any evidence that it is. We use the word "beg" because the effect of an argument that does this is to beg the critic to accept a testable premise as true without providing any evidence. It conveys the notion of his demanding something to which he is not strictly entitled -- hence, begging.

Your OP asks what must be going on in the heads of freed animals, such that they return to their captors to be used as food. That's based on the proposition that animals have emotional and cognitive abilities that would enable such thought. You didn't provide any evidence for that proposition; you just assumed it was true and required all your critics to accept it as true when formulating their rebuttals. In logic terms, you begged the question of animals' cognitive ability. And appropriately, right there in the first few responses on Page 1, people told you what you were doing wrong.

Thanks. MPOVS or multisidedness also on it. Why don't "perception" is used?

 

[Kumar]

You provided only the proof that your religion claims a thing. You didn't provide proof that the claim is true. This is what I mean when I say you don't understand the difference between a claim and evidence. The standard of proof for a religion's allegation of fact -- anyone's allegation of fact, really -- is not simply that the allegation exists. Documenting where the allegation was made does not prove it to be true. Noting that it is widely believed does not prove it to be true. Pointing to extant circumstances that serve as the setting for the allegation does not prove it to be true.

You don't know what proof is. That's a big problem with your efforts in this forum.

Sorry, this is neither a court room nor a dealing in potential toxic substances. Proofs can also depend on nature of substance. You have to be more strict in court room or in modern mendicines or in anything similar to it, but you need not to be so strict, where agents are least harming.

The subject of other religions came up only because you invoked it.

I pointed out earlier, just as I have repeated in the above section, that the standard of proof for a proposition must necessarily be more that simply that the proposition was stated. We often vary the standard of proof depending on what's at stake. But religions generally have a bigger problem meeting a reasonable standard of proof because they make claims with little prima facie plausibility. I said this especially in contrast to claims from ordinary history, which tend to be more prima facie plausible. We use that degree of plausibility to decide what a rational standard of proof should be, and you were trying to argue that history succeeds where religion fails because of anti-religious bias.

You were essentially trying to argue that the standard of proof for religious claims should be lowered such that religious claims have a success rate similar to historical claims. That begs the question that they should. Your argument culminated in an attempt at reductio ad absurdum, saying that with a standard of proof so high, no religion could possibly achieve reasonable proof of truthfulness. Your shock at my answer is just the result of you begging the question that some should be able to achieve it.

The fact that no religion can prove itself to be true via purely rational means is a problem with the nature of religion. You're trying to make it a problem with the means used to test truth.



No, a disputation of your affirmative claim is not a counterclaim that reverses the burden of proof. You made certain specific claims about the Jain religion. You claimed it derived from nature. You claimed it was "true." You may also have claimed it was scientifically valid. If you are presenting these statements to a skeptic audience, you bear the burden of proof to show -- by testable evidence -- that each of those statements is true. That's what it means to reason.

Someone who expresses disbelief in your statements doesn't acquire the burden of proof to refute them. He is the person you must convince with evidence. And you tried. You tried to show examples from nature that seemed to show your religion reflected natural conditions. But you committed the fallacy of what we call Cherry-Picking, or accepting as valid only the evidence that agreed with what you already believed. Your critics showed you facts from nature that contradicted the religion claimed. You explicitly disregarded it, explicitly on the basis that it doesn't fit your religion. When you ignore facts that dispute your claims, your critics can reasonably conclude that your claim does not stand. After that exercise, it is appropriate to say, "Jainism is not based on nature."

Regarding your claim that Jainism is some universal or prototypical religion (or that such a religion, if it existed, would materially resemble Jainism), we held a conversation in which it was revealed that you really don't know much about the different religions of the world. Given that the easily-seen practices and beliefs of different religions exhibit great variety, it is unlikely that there is one prototypical religion from which they all derived, and even less likely that if such a one existed, it would resemble Jainism. After that exercise, it is appropriate to say, "Jainism is not a prototypical or universal religion."

We can make a similar analysis of your claim (vaguely) that Jainism is compatible with science.

When your critics reach a conclusion that -- after obtaining, testing, and discussing the pertinent evidence -- negates your affirmative claims, that does not reverse the burden of proof. It merely notes that you have failed to prove your case.



Whether some other religion is true or not doesn't affect whether yours is true.

As above.

 

[JayUtah]

Thanks. MPOVS or multisidedness also on it. Why don't "perception" is used?

Your insistence on applying point of view to factual questions is one of the many ways you beg the question.

 

[JayUtah]

Sorry, this is neither a court room...

Irrelevant. You simply don't know what it means to prove something. If you're going to present your case to skeptics in a skeptics' forum, you will need to learn what it means to make a claim, to have evidence, and to apply a standard of proof. Don't expect people to abandon their standards just because you can't meet them. You are not guaranteed to be right.

 

[Kumar]

All you did is repeat the argument I refuted. Stop just banging away at the keyboard and read what's being written.



No, that is not how science works. Are you a scientist? I expect an answer to this question.

I have already shown you the error in imposing a one-sided absolute burden of proof only on your critics. You clearly cannot address it; you're just repeating your demand.

I do not want to be disrespected like a scientist as you did nor want to take partially cooked food. Yes in some, partially cooked unnatural foods can be used but not to me.

 

[JayUtah]

I do not want to be disrespected like a scientist as you did nor want to take partially cooked food. Yes in some, partially cooked unnatural foods can be used but not to me.

None of this has anything to do with what I wrote or the question I asked. Are you a scientist? Yes or no.

 

[Kumar]

You provided only the proof that your religion claims a thing. You didn't provide proof that the claim is true. .

Idiocy of one may not be applicable on other. Every face in nature is different, so need to be dealt accordingly. Best justification is already provided. Nothing more to discuss.

 

[JayUtah]

Idiocy of one may not be applicable on other. Every face in nature is different, so need to be dealt accordingly. Best justification is already provided. Nothing more to discuss.

You didn't address anything from my post. If you have nothing more to say, especially to address the rebuttals of your claims, then you must agree your argument has failed.

 

[Kumar]

That does not shift the burden of proof from you, demonstrate you claims about Jainism

Best Justification already provided relevant to nature of substance. Nothing more to add or discuss. Whatever you in joint think, is your problem not mine. Otherwise bring Time Machine, I shall accompany and show practically.