why are the same religious arguments made over and over again?

[joobz]

No. The validity of religion does not rely on it being stated in any proposition or argument. Religion can be valid due to experience, prior to, or independent of that being stated in words.

The validity and truthfulness of me just having drunk a cup of tea is intact and secure before I state it in words. It's validity and truthfulness does not rely on it being stated in words.
This is because it is experiential.

Therefore theists can be correct without saying anything; without having to engage in argument at all.

Atheists could be correct without saying anything too. But because experience is of no use to them, they have to use argument as their 'raw material'.

The moment you discuss it, it becomes an argument. Otherwise, it's just a construct in your mind. Are you going to presume that atheism can't simply exist in the mind?

 

[Phil]

No. The validity of religion does not rely on it being stated in any proposition or argument. Religion can be valid due to experience, prior to, or independent of that being stated in words.

The validity and truthfulness of me just having drunk a cup of tea is intact and secure before I state it in words. It's validity and truthfulness does not rely on it being stated in words.
This is because it is experiential.

Therefore theists can be correct without saying anything; without having to engage in argument at all. . . . .

Only correct in that there is religion or that they are religious; not correct about the validity of the source of their religiosity (e.g. the divinity of an unseen being). That is an element where there must be arguments proposed to assign any measure of validity. And the theist's arguments for divinity are impotent.

 

[plumjam]

The moment you discuss it, it becomes an argument. Otherwise, it's just a construct in your mind. Are you going to presume that atheism can't simply exist in the mind?

Well, let's face it, we're on a forum. So, here, there's no alternative to expressing things in language.. making propositions, arguments.
But experiencing this forum exists prior to, and independent of, actually writing a post and engaging in argument.
Lurkers can be sure this forum exists, from their experience, without ever having to post anything. So experience is more primary than argument.

 

[El_Spectre]

I wont deny there have been improvements in some areas in some parts of the world because of the knowledge we've aquired. We are pretty clever creatures after all with things like pyramids and medicine and technology.

Usually things like poverty and food shoratges are sometimes political and sociological issues and not necessarily issues of money and farmable land. (Then there is the possibility of soylent green after all )
And there is a whole solar system of resources available if we can figure a way of making it practical.

It sounds nice to say peace is easy, but it is not. Tell a parent that their kid must starve in the name of peace, instead of taking food from someone else. Doesn't happen very often.[/QUOTE]

Never said it would be easy. Only that if we were actualy smarter than our ancestors things might be better than it is now.[/QUOTE]

And they might be worse. Are we sure we want to base arguments on "might" ?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I agree with Wolfman (mostly) on this one.

So you agree with Wolfman that the problem with religion is that the "experience of god" leads to almost as many descriptions of god as there are people describing the experience and that their are myriad conflicting and often contradictory experiences of god.

I would add that genuine religion/spirituality is based on experience, not argument.

Like when someone hears God whispering "kill them all"?

Atheists are in a bit of a difficult spot in this regard. This is because you can't have an experience of God not existing, in a way that would preclude the possibility of his existence.

(The above is an argument.)
Could you try to explain this because it makes no sense. Substitute any of the following for the word "God" in the above statement:

Elvis' ghost
The Easter Bunny
The Flying Spaghetti Monster
The Invisible Pink Unicorn
The dragon in my garage
The teapot orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupiter

Therefore, atheists are forced to rely on argument, rather than experience. Theists don't need to rely on argument, they only need experience.

As has already been pointed out to you, many an atheist has come from a theistic background. And one can experience the lack of something.

In this sense I'd say that theists are prima facie in a stronger position. Plus, given their reliance on experience, I'd even say that theists are in a more scientific position.

Even that guy who hears God whispering insane, violent things in his head?

 

[plumjam]

Only correct in that there is religion or that they are religious; not correct about the validity of the source of their religiosity (e.g. the divinity of an unseen being). That is an element where there must be arguments proposed to assign any measure of validity. And the theist's arguments for divinity are impotent.

Well here it is. Because experience is of no use to atheists, but of use to theists, atheists typically have to attack the validity of experience when it comes to theists.
However, this attitude takes a complete u-turn when atheists vaunt the value and validity of empirical science. In this particular area, for atheists, experience is king.
This is an inconsistent approach, and entirely arbitrary.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The main difference being that the religious arguments have been refuted repeatedly.

I think Wolfman's point is that science leads to a general consensus of explanations while religion only leads to numerous contradictory explanations.

 

[KingMerv00]

No. The validity of religion does not rely on it being stated in any proposition or argument. Religion can be valid due to experience, prior to, or independent of that being stated in words.

The validity and truthfulness of me just having drunk a cup of tea is intact and secure before I state it in words. It's validity and truthfulness does not rely on it being stated in words.
This is because it is experiential.

Therefore theists can be correct without saying anything; without having to engage in argument at all.

Atheists could be correct without saying anything too. But because experience is of no use to them, they have to use argument as their 'raw material'.

So every loony's experience in the loony bin are equally valid?

Oh wait, nevermind. They were right before I stated that in words.

 

[tsg]

I think Wolfman's point is that science leads to a general consensus of explanations while religion only leads to numerous contradictory explanations.

Then I misread it.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Then I misread it.

Well, at least that's what I think he meant. If so then I started to misread him at first too.

 

[Foster Zygote]

So every loony's experience in the loony bin are equally valid?

Oh wait, nevermind. They were right before I stated that in words.

Am I the only one wondering when the ~experiencer~ will be mentioned?

 

[Phil]

Well here it is. Because experience is of no use to atheists, but of use to theists, atheists typically have to attack the validity of experience when it comes to theists.
However, this attitude takes a complete u-turn when atheists vaunt the value and validity of empirical science. In this particular area, for atheists, experience is king.
This is an inconsistent approach, and entirely arbitrary.

No, experience is of great use to atheists, just as it is to all people. But whether you feel it's an underhanded tactic or not, experience is of no use when assigning validity to an argument of this nature; that being whether there is a supernatural bossman or only natural processes. Only the value level of the evidence presented is of use when assigning validity to an argument.

As far as the "However, this attitude takes a complete u-turn when atheists vaunt the value and validity of empirical science. In this particular area, for atheists, experience is king." part of your post goes . . . . I'm not sure what you're getting at, but for a good skeptic, empirical evidence will always have the bigger impact irrespective of experience.

 

[uruk]

And they might be worse. Are we sure we want to base arguments on "might" ?

Well, you can't predict the future. I'm just saying that a possibilty exists where one might not have otherwise.

My only point was that knowledge and intelligence were different things. Knowing things is great. Using that knowledge is even better.

Would you do agree that poverty, starvation, bigotry and war can be detrimantal to you?

Would you not say that being smarter than someone else may provide you with the abilty to figure out a way to avoid something that is detrimental to you better than the one who is not as smart?

 

[tsg]

Well, at least that's what I think he meant. If so then I started to misread him at first too.

I went back and re-read it. You're right.

Where I got confused is it isn't actually addressing the OP, which is that the same religious arguments keep cropping up over and over again despite being thoroughly refuted time and time again.

 

[plumjam]

So you agree with Wolfman that the problem with religion is that the "experience of god" leads to almost as many descriptions of god as there are people describing the experience and that their are myriad conflicting and often contradictory experiences of god

.
didn't you read the 'mostly' ?

Like when someone hears God whispering "kill them all"?

This is about the fourth time I've seen you bring this up. I'm starting to worry about you. I answered it at length on another thread. In short, all moral decisions should be tested against conscience, with or without voices in the head. If a person then still decides to "kill kill" they can reasonably be judged to be dangerous and/or insane and can be put in a secure unit, until they can show themselves to be otherwise.

Could you try to explain this because it makes no sense. Substitute any of the following for the word "God" in the above statement:

Elvis' ghost
The Easter Bunny
The Flying Spaghetti Monster
The Invisible Pink Unicorn
The dragon in my garage
The teapot orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupiter

only with the last two can you have an experience of them not existing, and this because the examples are confined within particular spatial co-ordinates. God is typically described as existing independently of space and time, so any experience within space and time cannot be of a nature which precludes the existence of God.

As has already been pointed out to you, many an atheist has come from a theistic background. And one can experience the lack of something.

If I can't find my keys I experience the lack of something. That doesn't mean my keys don't exist, or that I won't find them in the future.

Even that guy who hears God whispering insane, violent things in his head?

The 5th time
see above

 

[plumjam]

So every loony's experience in the loony bin are equally valid?

Oh wait, nevermind. They were right before I stated that in words.

If you take a loony and put him in a laboratory to do experiments, then put him in a monastery to pray and meditate, the results are likely to be of pretty equal uselessness
That doesn't invalidate science, nor spiritual practice.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

There is a wonderful religous argument that I cannot bring myself to believe in, but it is new, and worth sharing none the less. I'm paraphrasing, but I get the gist of it.

One man feared Allah, so he ordered his family to burn his body and scatter the ashes into the sea and the fields. Allah called the sea and the Earth and put his body back together again. Because of his ignorance (jahalia) Allah forgave this man. Now, Rumi, the Sufi poet said in one of his poems something along the lines of 'I will entrust my body like the luggage that sails to sea'.

The argument is nothing more than faith, but it gives an argument for having faith, however irrational it may be.

 

[plumjam]

No, experience is of great use to atheists, just as it is to all people. But whether you feel it's an underhanded tactic or not, experience is of no use when assigning validity to an argument of this nature; that being whether there is a supernatural bossman or only natural processes. Only the value level of the evidence presented is of use when assigning validity to an argument

.
well you're providing a case in point. You're just flatly stating that experience is of no use in the theistic realm. You aren't explaining why.
If many sane, moral, intelligent people throughout history have experienced the "supernatural bossman" and describe the experience similarly, why, in this example is experience seen of no value?
When many sane, moral, intelligent people throughout history experience a particular scientific experiment and describe the experience similarly, why, here, is experience suddenly of such high value?

As far as the "However, this attitude takes a complete u-turn when atheists vaunt the value and validity of empirical science. In this particular area, for atheists, experience is king." part of your post goes . . . . I'm not sure what you're getting at, but for a good skeptic, empirical evidence will always have the bigger impact irrespective of experience.

Do you know what empiricism is? It is the view that experience is a highly valid way of knowing about reality. Empirical science is based on experience.

 

[Freethinker]

.

Do you know what empiricism is? It is the view that experience is a highly valid way of knowing about reality. Empirical science is based on experience.

Wrong.

The word empirical is used differently in science, and the difference is so distinct as to make your whole point invalid. I'd suggest you do a little reading.

 

[Foster Zygote]

.
didn't you read the 'mostly' ?

As that was the entire point of Wolfman's post, what part did you agree with?

This is about the fourth time I've seen you bring this up. I'm starting to worry about you. I answered it at length on another thread. In short, all moral decisions should be tested against conscience, with or without voices in the head. If a person then still decides to "kill kill" they can reasonably be judged to be dangerous and/or insane and can be put in a secure unit, until they can show themselves to be otherwise.

Sort of shoots down the whole "experience is the only valid way to truth" argument, doesn't it? It seems experience is the only valid way to truth that we approve of. It's almost as though the source of the "truths" to be found is our own mind rather than a god or gods.

only with the last two can you have an experience of them not existing, and this because the examples are confined within particular spatial co-ordinates. God is typically described as existing independently of space and time, so any experience within space and time cannot be of a nature which precludes the existence of God.

So the first four still pose a problem to your definition of god. Which leads back to the problem that people have had many contradictory internal experiences of god, including gods that exist in a particular space/time coordinate.

If I can't find my keys I experience the lack of something. That doesn't mean my keys don't exist, or that I won't find them in the future.

But it is also true that you can experience the lack of something that has never existed, such as the Easter Bunny.

The 5th time
see above

Yes, and it took four tries to get you to acknowledge this problem with your argument. You claim to be experiencing something external, yet you accept only those experiences that you agree with. How should I differentiate between your experience of god talking to you and a thousand other people's contradictory claims?