My Final Word On Religion For A While

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Basically you are saying that a theory that includes the prediction that most people will disagree with it can now dismiss the fact that most people do in fact disagree with it. Or go even further and somehow claim that the existence of detractors is evidence FOR the theory.


[/ QUOTE ]
No. Basically, I'm not saying any of that. I am not speaking of a prediction or a prophecy. I am not speaking in general terms. I am saying that the existence of other religions is consistent with what the Bible says about the nature of God and the nature of Satan. I didn't say that this was evidence the Bible is true. I said that other religions being in existence is NOT evidence the Bible is false.

[/ QUOTE ]


Firstly I never said that you implied that the theory's prediction of many detractors would ADD to its credence. What I said was that myriad detractors subtracts from its credence. And you can't make that subtraction go away by throwing in the fact that detractors are part of the theory. That is exactly the tactic of vitamin supplement charlatans when they throw in the idea that doctor's will be opposed because they will lose money.

On the other side of the coin the existence of competing theories is only evidence not proof. After all atheism, ironically is in the same boat as conservative Christianity. About the same 90% or so disagree with it. And atheists aside from disbelieving also usually predict that most people will disagree. And the fact that 90% of people disagree with atheists IS evidence against them. And the fact that atheists predicted that disagreement doesn't ameliorate that.

PS To Pair The Board Only (Because Everyone Else Understands):

The reason I say that the fact that 90% of people disagreeing with a theory is evidence against it, is because of all theories ever proposed that were eventually settled, those that had 90% disagreeing, turned out to be right much less often than those which had few disagreeing.

[vhawk01]

How did the Mirage tourny go for you, David?

[David Sklansky]

Didn't play.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I say that the fact that 90% of people disagreeing with a theory is evidence against it, is because of all theories ever proposed that were eventually settled, those that had 90% disagreeing, turned out to be right much less often than those which had few disagreeing.


[/ QUOTE ]

The point I'm making David is that none of those Theories were in the same Class as Propositions like, "God exists", "There is an afterlife", "Some people go to Hell when they die", "God is Love", "Material existence is an illusion", etc. What defines this class of propositions is that they Cannot Be Settled.

And even for those theories that could be settled. You would never have determined which were the ones that actually would turn out true by applying your observation. They weren't determined true by votes. They were determined true by taking an unbiased look at the theory on its own merits.

PairTheBoard

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
And the fact that 90% of people disagree with atheists IS evidence against them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I agree with this. The reasons why 90% of people believe in god have zero to do with the actual probability of him existing, no? There are many psychological payoffs to belief that do not require god's actual existence to be true. If anything, it is evidence that people overwhelmingly PREFER believing in god - but that's not the same as evidence against athiesm.

[JussiUt]

The fact that a lot of people believe something is true isn't scientifical evidence for its validity. Common sense says majority is probably right most of the time but that has nothing to with the actual truth value. It's just speculation and intuition.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
What I said was that myriad detractors subtracts from its credence. And you can't make that subtraction go away by throwing in the fact that detractors are part of the theory.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well that depends heavily on the theory. Your statement certainly does not cover all theories in all situations, but rather each theory must be evaluated on its merits. This is why the mere existence of other religions should not discount the truth of the Bible. Likewise, the tactic of the vitamin supplement charlatans should be evaluated with what the doctors' opinions actually are and not just the fact that the doctors oppose them.

[David Sklansky]

If a medical theory is opposed by doctors and that is the only thing you know about it, it is less likely to be true than one that isn't opposed by doctors. If you have extra information about the theory, that may be enough to convince somebody to ignore the doctors opposition. Granted. BUT that extra information CANNOT simply be that the theory predicts doctor opposition.

This is pure logic and probability, unrelated to religion and the more you argue, the sillier you look.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
And the fact that 90% of people disagree with atheists IS evidence against them.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes and 300 years ago you would be saying the same thing about the earth being flat.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
...I never said that you implied that the theory's prediction of many detractors would ADD to its credence...

[/ QUOTE ]
I enjoyed this sentence - despite being clear and straightforward it took me three goes to understand what it was saying. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]