Proof of logic

[blobru]

Except even the SCOTUS is demonstrably not infallible -- case in point, Plessy vs. Ferguson, which was specifically overturned by a later court.

Does Brown v. Board of Education absolve Plessy?

But I get your point. Maybe infallible w.r.t. current interpretation of US law? (Although I see even that's subject to the Exceptions Clause; damn, strike three! Maybe-ee SCOTUS is a bad example. Can't think of any others... besides the Pope.)

 

[RandFan]

President Bush.

Lots of people respected him, and still more respected his office.
He's said many, many things.

Have all his statements been true?

(hint: far fewer people today respect him, as seen by his approval ratings taking a nose-dive.)

Appeal to authority (or simply someone respected is problematic).

I would only be interested in an appeal to someone who was an expert in his or her field and was respected by his or her peers.

 

[drkitten]

I am not sure I think that the OT was inspired.

Well, if you believe in "God" but don't believe in the OT, then right there you part company with almost everyone else who believes in "God." And at this point I have even less reason to take your "argument from authority" seriously, because the so-called authority that you cite is not recognized as an authority by anyone other than yourself.

But - if god is omniscient, then he is infallible. Damn, you probably will want me to justify his omniscience...

Damn straight. You're learning how the game is played. No unsupported hypotheticals cast as truths.

 

[drkitten]

Can't think of any others... besides the Pope.

That's because "infallibility" is generally recognized as a silly concept outside of religous circles. No human agency can be infallible, and even "divine" ones are usually administered by humans that make mistakes.

I'd, in fact, argue, that belief in "infallibility" is one of the marks that distinguish "cults" from "religons."

 

[slingblade]

Appeal to authority (or simply someone respected is problematic).

I know. We know. But JetLeg is convinced it's fully valid.

I would only be interested in an appeal to someone who was an expert in his or her field and was respected by his or her peers.

I used to make that exception--now, I'm not so sure. Even experts in their fields can be wrong.

A stupid Reganism is starting to make more sense to me these days, and that alone is scary as hell!

"Trust.....but verify."

 

[cyborg]

Even experts in their fields can be wrong.

Experts are frequently wrong - just like everyone else. We appeal to them as being less wrong on average than the non-expert.

Appeal to authourity is always a fallacy - but that doesn't matter so much in a debate if the debators are willing to agree on the validity of the authourity. Fallacy simply becomes premise.

 

[JetLeg]

I know. We know. But JetLeg is convinced it's fully valid.

I am still not sure how do you demonstrate it isn't valid.

 

[slingblade]

I am still not sure how do you demonstrate it isn't valid.

Well, honey, if you think everything you think, feel, hear, and see is true, then no one can demonstrate it to you.

 

[articulett]

jet lag-- there are FACTS--those are the things that are the same for everyone

And then there's everything else... those are things like court decisions, opinions, feelings, beliefs, mottos, ideals, stories, myths, delusions, illusions, hearsay, decrees, judgments, etc.

Facts are the things that don't need to be believed in or discussed to still be true. The earth is a sphere and was before humans knew it. Africa exists even if you don't believe it does. See the difference? I blame religion for the lack of clarity between the two for believers.

 

[JetLeg]

To which of my posts is it a reply, articulett?

 

[slingblade]

To which of my posts is it a reply, articulett?

What bloody difference does that make?

 

[articulett]

To which of my posts is it a reply, articulett?

Just about everything you say. You treat things that are not facts as though they should be measured like facts or disproved like facts. It might be a fact that you believe in god-- but that does not make your god a fact-- just your belief. Even if none of us believe in god--we can still understand that you really do. But you can't seem to understand that such a belief doesn't make your god real. Court decisions are opinions. It's a fact that an opinion was decided one way or the other-- but the decision itself is an opinion.

Someone may or may not have committed a murder. The verdict doesn't change the facts. The verdict is the decision that is supposed to best reflect the facts... Being found "not guilty" may make you "not guilty" in the eyes of the law-- but it has no affect on whether you actually ARE guilty or not.

I just see this all the time with religious people. They'll treat "all men are created equal" as the same type of statement as "the earth revolves around the sun". The former is an ideal; the latter is a claim of fact that can be tested and shown to be true or false. And even if we never tested it, it still would be a fact.

 

[JetLeg]

That's because "infallibility" is generally recognized as a silly concept outside of religous circles. No human agency can be infallible, and even "divine" ones are usually administered by humans that make mistakes.

I'd, in fact, argue, that belief in "infallibility" is one of the marks that distinguish "cults" from "religons."

God is usually said to be infallible.

 

[slingblade]

God is usually said to be infallible. So, all are cults to you?

Could be.

 

[articulett]

What bloody difference does that make?

Aaack-- woo questions are the worst. They never want the answers-- they just want the attention ever on themselves. I must learn not to bite.

(they cannot compute; they cannot compute; they cannot compute)

 

[slingblade]

I guess so. You wouldn't believe the smell of my breath from having taken the bait so much.

 

[drkitten]

God is usually said to be infallible.

Yes, but no sensible version of religion ascribes that infallibility even to our perceptions of Him. Quite the opposite, in fact, The Devil is notorious for passing himself off as God in order to corrupt mortals who believe that they are nevertheless perceiving God's will and doing God's work.

That's one of the lessons of Matthew 7:15 (and Luke 6:43). "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit."

"The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart."

Or, in other words, just because you feel it in your heart it doesn't make it good -- or true.

 

[JetLeg]

Yes, but no sensible version of religion ascribes that infallibility even to our perceptions of Him. Quite the opposite, in fact, The Devil is notorious for passing himself off as God in order to corrupt mortals who believe that they are nevertheless perceiving God's will and doing God's work.

That's one of the lessons of Matthew 7:15 (and Luke 6:43). "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit."

"The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart."

Or, in other words, just because you feel it in your heart it doesn't make it good -- or true.

I do feel that organised religion implicitly implies our infallibilty to recognize that we believe in god and not in something else.

And I am still with the argument that it is arrogant to say that organized religion is wrong.

 

[jond]

And I am still with the argument that it is arrogant to say that organized religion is wrong.

Another of my pet woo peeves:

Please explain how the statement "God created Man in his image" is not arrogant, while the statement "Humans are merely one of many many many species on earth, and earth is but one of many many many planets in this universe. Therefore humans really aren't very important in the universe" is arrogant. Please further explain how claiming to know the will of the creator of the universe is not arrogant, but not believing in a creator is arrogant.

 

[Mashuna]

I do feel that organised religion implicitly implies our infallibilty to recognize that we believe in god and not in something else.

And I am still with the argument that it is arrogant to say that organized religion is wrong.

So is your feeling in this implicit implication enough? If they strengthened it, would you be happier with an explicit implication? Does organised religion agree with you, or is it still only something that you feel?

I'm with the argument that it's arrogant of you to say that I'm wrong to say that organized religion is wrong (let's see how long we can keep this going).