◊ Platinum Patron ◊
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


LogicalFallacy last won the day on January 21

LogicalFallacy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,084 Holy Cow!


About LogicalFallacy

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    New Zealand
  • Interests
    Fishing, camping, gardening, politics, social dynamics, science, philosophy. A special interest in mythology and ancient history (Both ancient humans and ancient earth)
  • More About Me
    You can find out more by chatting on our discord channel. Link below

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    A transcendent, immaterial, invisible Pink Unicorn

Recent Profile Visitors

3,814 profile views
  1. On Faith and True Knowledge

    @TinMan There is something I have been pondering lately, well, it has always been there I just did not realize what I was dealing with at the time. I have been considering the difference between faith claims and what we can ascertain to be true knowledge. When I say true knowledge, I do not necessarily imply we have a complete understanding, but we could reasonably say it matches reality as humans understand it because it has an existential element to it, i.e., we can test it, observe it, or verify it to some extent. A read through of BAA and Dude's thread on Complete vs Limited Understanding might be a start. This was a very interesting topic on understanding, truth etc I mention this because I am struggling to get a grasp on faith claims (in this case, explicitly the Bible or tradition passed down the church) and how they are to be understood. Even more specifically, there are a lot of different faith claims floating around in different denominations and I can reasonably say, almost none are able to be verified or placed in a category of true knowledge as I described above. I have an example from today, I ran across this Linkedin profile where this gentleman had wrote a whole blog on the different types of people who are going to be in hell. Faith claims are not isolated to the bible. Thus a great thing to bring up with religious people is that people from other religions also have faith claims. Why doesn't (say a Christian) accept the faith claims of a Muslim or Hindu? Once they can answer that then they know why you reject their faith claims. Women who wore hoop earrings People who listened to secular music Women who wore trousers Couples who have sex with the woman on top (no kidding, this was actually stated) I wouldn't say this is a faith claim. Rather its someone's opinion. Stupid, illogical opinion at that. "Hell exists" is a faith claim. You are going to hell because of x y or z is an opinion. Not only that, the Bible does not have what I consider a divine stamp. It has human hands all over it, we are unable to actually verify if it is indeed inspired by God, therefore the authority of the Bible becomes another faith claim. Actually I would say we are able to verify some of the claims made. And because they do not past the verification test we can reject them. One claim is how the world was made in Genesis - we can reject that. The Exodus, we can reject that. The flood story, we can reject that. These are things we can test, and find out that they fail the test. Jesus promise of "returning soon". We can reject that. One of my questions would be, if God truly does love us as so many claim, why would there not be evidence for the Bible or claims within Christianity that could be subjected to the scientific method or any other verifiable method to determine what exactly we should believe and how we should live? Do modern humans demand too much so far as evidence goes? No, considering there are 2 billion Christians, and most just believe on faith I would say there is an extreme lack of demand for evidence. If people demanded evidence Christianity would fall over tomorrow. Tying into the previous question, if we all lived in the first century, would we find the claims for the Christian faith compelling, and if so, why? I ask this question because perhaps modern humans do not see the world as the ancients did and that is why a lot of us end up leaving the faith. That would depend on our level of scepticism I guess. It can be shown that if you are inclined to believe one false thing, then you are more susceptible to believe other false things. The reason for my post is because I do have a lot, and I mean a lot of doubts about the Christian faith but I am always plagued by the "what if." What if the answer is really obvious but I missed it and end up regretting it after I die and I end up standing in front of the Christian God. Am I being unreasonable for wanting to verify the claims and to truly understand what is expected? No, you are not being unreasonable. No just God would judge any honest investigation. However if there is a God and he is a prick then I wouldn't want to worship him anyway. But let me suggest that you do not have these worries about meeting any other God apart from the one you were brought up to believe in. Think of that. Do you worry about running into Hades? Or Zeus. Anubis? I know a lot of you have put the idea of Christianity to bed, but I am not sure how you did it. How plausible is it our first example is actually correct and God has what we consider very extreme and/or outrageous expectations. How plausible is the second example? How plausible is it any of it is true by either modern day or historical reasoning? Curious to hear different takes on it because I am losing my mind over it. As much as I would like to say "this is not true and I have nothing to fear," I am afraid I do not know how to disprove any of the faith claims just as I am unable to prove any of them. One of the first things is to be comfortable with not knowing 100%. Can I give you a gift wrapped 100% guarantee that the Christian God doesn't exist? No. But I can't do that for my transcendent unicorn either. What we can say, is based on everything we know, all the information we can currently gather, the existence of God is very unlikely.
  2. It's a legal entity, usually with limited liability. You think that legal corporations are the problem? Companies do no run themselves. People do.
  3. I don't think you are getting it. Without Government the corporations would run amuck. People would still get screwed. What might happen without Government is that people would get screwed and the company goes under. Then they will just form a new one. It comes from the basic underlying driving force of capitalism: Greed. Until we can get people to operate in a free market, but be responsible both in terms of environment, and in honest practices, I think we need good government to ensure these people to play fair.
  4. No it doesn't. Burnedout has faith in free market competition. But as we can show time and again, unregulated people, whether they be in the form of corporations, or individuals in agreement, will take what they can if no one stops them. The reason for the 2008 GFC was that finance companies found they could gain a competitive advantage by packaging worthless mortgages that were layered with A grade mortgages. However at some point the entire market realized that these CFD's were horseshit and their price plummeted. The losses were so great that they were more than companies market capitalization. The Government stepped in and propped these companies back up by injecting cash into the market. Was this the right thing to do? Who knows, but the alternative was a total worldwide economic collapse.
  5. Saint Therese of Lisieux

    Ok.... not entirely sure how to respond to all that. Have you considered, that maybe, just maybe no Gods exist? That maybe the vikings lost because the other team played better?
  6. History of the 'F' Word

    That was so not fucking obvious ya fuckwit! Fuckityfuckfuckit! That should be a new word
  7. Aren't I supposed to be the king of funny? Why you encouraging others? Yer not funny!
  8. Cheers Man, yep, now you've got two posts to read
  9. This applies to any science, some particular fields to a greater or lesser degree. However over time bad ideas gradually get weeded out, and the strong well supported ideas stay. I guess the best way to illustrate this sentiment is with a paraphrased quote, I think from Dawkins: "The sharp edge of an axe, which is superb at its job of splitting wood, when viewed under a microscope appears dull and full of pits and flaws. However it is the combined weight of the axe that allows it to do its job despite the flaws. Likewise science, when viewed closely with squabbling scientists and personal interests seems like a deeply flawed process, but it is the combined weight of years of research that allows science to do its job of finding truths about the world." Now that's heavily paraphrased - I can't find the actual quote, but basically gives the sentiment. Look ultimately if its all wrong, then in 50-100 years all this research will be consigned to the dustbin. Well maybe not all, its very rare in any field for ALL research to be wrong. Like Newton's Gravity - it wasn't all wrong, it just needed an update with new information and understanding. Climate science is at the cutting edge of science. Its fairly new, and involves multiple complex variables. We should expect to see conflict and disputes at this edge. Say the sea level does rise as predicted - between 3 to 6 feet in 100 years, well people will stop arguing that its all bad science and a fraud.... that or they will be rightly classified as irrational.
  10. No disagreement there. I simply disagree with his overly cynical attitude and find his arguments re GW unconvincing. Yes, I agree, but not so open our brains fall out, or that we let any garbage in. Yes, I have already reversed my position on GW - I used to be very much like BO... but the arguments only hold well on the surface. Once you start digging down I find the arguments against GW fall over to the degree that they end up mostly very poor arguments. And that's the scientific arguments against it. The whole global conspiracy thing I just roll my eyes at frankly. Yep, I get it, politics mixing with science is frustrating but taking that to the level BO does, is imo, as bad as Al Gore and his underwater New York. It could be, but in my experience with BO, I do think his cynicism combined with intense distrust of anything institutional, and his libertarian values does impact on how he makes decisions. We call this a bias, and yes we all have them. Oh I can too! Sometimes I read back on some of my posts and think, well that was snarky, or you were joking too much to make the point. But hey that's what makes things fun. (PS sorry discussing you BO, it does make me uncomfortable, but I find comparing our relative ways to be interesting)
  11. Jonah and the whale

    "17 Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights." Jonah 1:17 (KJV) New Translations make it a whale. I think the whale/fish argument is irrelevant as the writers probably didn't know the difference. It swam in the sea therefore fish, much like bats fly therefore birds. Note the time of three days and three nights pops up n several stories in the bible - the most notable being Jesus resurrection.
  12. Evolution is intelligent

    I love this. Creationists say you don't get a half this and a half that. I'm like.. have you gone to locations where you can watch in real time a creature that is obviously both fish and not fish come out of the water and hop about on land?
  13. Evolution is intelligent

    You seem to simultaneously believe in Woden, Thor, St Mary, some God deity. These propositions have generally been regarded as competing and contradictory to one an other. Thus it seems to me that you believe what makes you feel good. Would it be accurate to say that you believe in whatever makes you feel good?
  14. God obeys his mother

    Christians are not known for their openness and tolerance on the whole.
  15. Does Hell Scare You....It Does Me

    No, there is no evidence hell does exist. I don't spend my time fearing that which does not exist. Do you fear Hades, Tartarus, the underworld or any other imaginary place humans have invented? End3 it was probably just a bad dream, of which we have many, and he was 'acting it out'. Your cognitive functions would have done the rest to create some explanation outside of what actually happened. My brother in law tells me my sister carries on full conversations with him while she is sleeping.... but has no recollection of it. Our brains are amazing and complicated and does really random stuff at times.