My Final Word On Religion For A While

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]
Extra information about the theory? How about evaluating the theory itself? Regardless, the extra information, as you call it, about Christianity is not that the Bible predicts other religions. That's not it.

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

[/ QUOTE ]
This is about Christianity, but you are evaluating it from a mathematical standpoint because that is all you know how to do, primarily I would assume because you have not read the Bible. Calling me silly is nothing more than an ad hominem attack, one of which I quite frankly don't appreciate.

[David Sklansky]

"This is about Christianity, but you are evaluating it from a mathematical standpoint because that is all you know how to do, primarily I would assume because you have not read the Bible."

Its amazing how confused you are. Because it was YOU originally claiming that when one evaluates it form a mathematical standpoint you get a result different from the result a mathmetican would get. I never argued on this thread about the idea that one might change their mind if they read the bible. I am only arguing the fact that any theory with many detractors, has on average, a lesser chance of being correct than a theory with fewer detractors. ANY THEORY ABOUT ANYTHING. And you claimed that the above wasn't true if part of the theory included a prediction of detractors. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION. And the fact that you don't get it is in fact evidence that your beliefs about ANYTHING can't be trusted.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I am only arguing the fact that any theory with many detractors, has on average, a lesser chance of being correct than a theory with fewer detractors.

[/ QUOTE ]

That depends on whether the detractors are experts in the area and have studied the issue. It also depends on whether the issue is competent for expert evalution. Otherwise, your Inference just prejudices consideration of the issue on its own merits.

PairTheBoard

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Because it was YOU originally claiming that when one evaluates it form a mathematical standpoint you get a result different from the result a mathmetican would get.

[/ QUOTE ]
What? A quote from YOUR op: So religions are born. Many religions. And even though the sheer number of these religions should be yet another reason to doubt their validity about specific issues lots of people don't.

[ QUOTE ]
I never argued on this thread about the idea that one might change their mind if they read the bible.

[/ QUOTE ]
The point is that you should not go through life basing your opinions on the opinions of others. There are so many reasons that others might reject what is in the Bible, deciding that it isn't important because other religions exist might lead you to miss an important truth. The Bible does not just predict detractors, it explains why they are there.

[ QUOTE ]
I am only arguing the fact that any theory with many detractors, has on average, a lesser chance of being correct than a theory with fewer detractors. ANY THEORY ABOUT ANYTHING...THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.

[/ QUOTE ]
The title of this thread and the OP indicate that you were specifically talking about religion.

[ QUOTE ]
And you claimed that the above wasn't true if part of the theory included a prediction of detractors.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, David. That's only what you told me I said. What I really said, again, was that the Bible explains why the detractors exist. When you have an explanation within the theory as to why the detractors are misguided, it discounts the argument, YOUR argument, that the mere existence of the detractors is enough to doubt the validity of the theory.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Because it was YOU originally claiming that when one evaluates it form a mathematical standpoint you get a result different from the result a mathmetican would get.


[/ QUOTE ]

You've completely misrepresented Tx's position throughout this argument. The orginal statement Tx responded to was this:

[ QUOTE ]

So religions are born. Many religions. And even though the sheer number of these religions should be yet another reason to doubt their validity about specific issues lots of people don't.


[/ QUOTE ]


His response:

[ QUOTE ]

I only said that opposing relgions are likely to exist even if the Bible is true because of what the Bible says about Satan.


[/ QUOTE ]

and
[ QUOTE ]

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 ]


Tx isn't saying anything about detractors in general. He's saying there are many false religions which is explained by the Bible, so the existence of the religions are not an argument against Christianity. I've said much the same in different terms. More than that, the Bible goes into much detail about man's nature and explains why so few follow God and instead indulge in idolatry. But you're trying to argue as if Tx had said "The Bible says people will disagree with God's word" and therefore we shouldn't take notice of detractors.

He also said this:

[ QUOTE ]

Extra information about the theory? How about evaluating the theory itself? Regardless, the extra information, as you call it, about Christianity is not that the Bible predicts other religions. That's not it.


[/ QUOTE ]

So he's denying your mischaracterizaton of his argument. His argument is that the Bible explains why there are false religions. And it isn't just a bare explanation, but includes facts about human nature that are obviously true. If the vitamin salesmen showed that doctors' income went down in areas where vitamins are sold they would have a case for what they claim about doctors' motivation. Or if the salemen said that the doctors' ulterior motives aren't evidence that vitamins are good for you, just that the doctors' statements aren't evidence that they aren't.

One other observation:

Suppose there are 100 worldviews only one of which can be correct and the other 99 are wrong. Your argument would apply to all the worldviews equally because each has 99 detractors. But the existence of the detractors can't itself be an argument against any one worldview. You might have a case if 90% of the world agreed on one worldview and that the only other worldview is wrong. From a strictly human viewpoint there would be an initial presumption that the 10% WV is suspect. But that's not the situation. So I don't see how opposition to any one religion is evidence the religion is false. Maybe we actually have to look at content instead of taking polls - even polls of "smart" people.

[Trier]

Since death, the state of ‘being dead’, is both an unknown and the unknowable, it’s generally not worth thinking about.

We can be sure, however, whatever it is, it’s going to be radically different from this other state, the state of being alive. Being alive, therefore, is a poor information base for making decisions about what could be, well, a pretty long time.

Yet people routinely make decisions about what being dead is going to be like while they’re still alive. So they subscribe to this god or that, this or that religion, brand of diet lemonade, whatever, as a sort of insurance.

It seems to me a much more logical and preferable course is to postpone all such decisions until I’m, well, dead. I mean, this could be a major decision.

You want to have a look around the place, maybe get a guest stay here and there, check a few things out. Maybe you could get a bidding war going among the local landlords, landladies, landthings. You might bargain on the number of virgins, number of orgasms, that sort of thing.

Or you might want to devote your death to barbequing meat (seemed to work out alright back when I was alive).

No – much safer to leave those decisions ’til then.

[Klompy]

DS,

I'm still confused how a smart person can think it's more likely that the universe and earth were formed from a big bang, which was followed by life started from nothing, then I am by people who think there's something more behind it.

[Trier]

I'm still confused how a smart person can think it's less likely that the universe started with the Big Bang, and the earth and life started from the same energy and a hundred and some elements in all their myriad complexity (no, not nothing), than that it all started from some god going 'Foop'. For all of the former there is enormous evidence. For the latter, none.

[David Sklansky]

"Suppose there are 100 worldviews only one of which can be correct and the other 99 are wrong. Your argument would apply to all the worldviews equally because each has 99 detractors. But the existence of the detractors can't itself be an argument against any one worldview. You might have a case if 90% of the world agreed on one worldview and that the only other worldview is wrong. From a strictly human viewpoint there would be an initial presumption that the 10% WV is suspect. But that's not the situation. So I don't see how opposition to any one religion is evidence the religion is false. Maybe we actually have to look at content instead of taking polls - even polls of "smart" people."

My argument in your example WOULD apply to all 100 worldviews. The fact that they disagree among themselves about who is right, doesn't change the fact that 99 agree that you are wrong.

Also remember that Txaq's argument ironically works almost exactly as well for Atheism as conservative Christianity. And my position is the same for both of them. Namely that with 90% of the world disagreeing with you or them I expect persuasive evidence of your or their correctness before I will agree. And don't bother to dismiss those 90% just because part of your or their position goes into detail about why you would expect those disagreements.

On the other hand this is all pretty irrelevant. Because even though you, Pair The Board, and Txaq are drawing dead in your quest to disprove that widespeadsd disagreement is always a factor in evaluating a theory, it is also true that it usually isn't a strong factor. It is a factor that can often be overwhelmed by other factors. I'm only arguing so vehemently because I don't like it when someone disputes my logic.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
DS,

I'm still confused how a smart person can think it's more likely that the universe and earth were formed from a big bang, which was followed by life started from nothing, then I am by people who think there's something more behind it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That wasn't directed at me was it?