I see, so you are saying that is is reasonable to believe in 6 inch tall flying fairies then in real life?

It's not irrational to think that unless there is evidence to the contrary. It might be ignorant to argue such a thing, but not necessarily irrational.

No one is saying only religion causes things like the Holocaust. Those of us who think religion is corrosive are against any form of ignorance. It's ignorance in general, not religion specifically, that's the problem.

So then why do you argue against an unrelated problem instead of spending your energy on the problem you actually have a problem with?

So then why do you argue against an unrelated problem instead of spending your energy on the problem you actually have a problem with?

What's unrelated about it? It's a specific instance of a more general problem. That doesn't make it irrelevant.

It really scares me if religious people get voted to power. You really can't know how illogical decisions they made.

Yes, if that "religious" person is a zealot, but "Christian" != "religious" usually.

What if the man in the power does something really stupid, by following the Revelation, or any other fairy tale book?

So you found proof that the Bible is a fairy tale book?!? Wow, can you share that proof with the rest of us?

Oh, I get it, you're just being a troll.

So you found proof that the Bible is a fairy tale book?!? Wow, can you share that proof with the rest of us?

Oh, I get it, you're just being a troll.

This is what I mean. This is why it is so incredibly frustrating for those of us who are just trying to get believers to use simple logic.

Machaira, let's try something out. Will you share proof with the rest of us that the Easter Bunny isn't real?

I'll give you a hint. You can't. You can't prove that the Easter Bunny isn't real. Could a magical omnipresent candy-laying vaguely god-related rabbit exist? I can't prove it's impossible. That's why that's not how it works. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is you who has the burden of proof to show that the Easter Bunny exists, because the default answer any reasonable person comes to is "Nope, I have no reason to think it exists."

Now how is god or the bible different from the Easter Bunny? Is there more proof? Is he less magical? Is the very concept any less divergent from what we know of how the universe works by experience and logic?

Much of science is very skeptical about superstring theory and M theory because they so far fail to provide testable predictions. This is why we choose science as a means by which to define Truth. It is self-regulating. Lack of falsifiability means we don't accept this theory as true. At least superstring theory is internally consistent though. Religion can't be said to even be that.

[quote name='Machaira' timestamp='1311267734' post='4838517']
So you found proof that the Bible is a fairy tale book?!? Wow, can you share that proof with the rest of us?

Oh, I get it, you're just being a troll.

This is what I mean. This is why it is so incredibly frustrating for those of us who are just trying to get believers to use simple logic.

Machaira, let's try something out. Will you share proof with the rest of us that the Easter Bunny isn't real?[/quote]


What part of "lack of evidence does not equal evidence of lack" is hard to understand? You obviously can't prove a negative. I've never said I have proof of God, but I'm not the one that made an absolute statement, implying that said statement was true, here.

If someone is going to call the Bible a fairly tale, not say they believe it's a fairy tale (yes, there's a difference), or make some other absolute statement about Christianity not being true, they should have proof. Otherwise the person is just being a hypocrite.

Of course, trolls don't need to follow rules, right?

stuff before this next bit

yes. and that has nothing to do with being rational or irrational. It changes the probabilities of certain things, but until you get to the actual 100% certainty endpoint the option is always there. It's very unlikely that 00 comes up in a game of roulette, but the mere existence of that square and 0 on the roulette wheel shift the probability in favor of the casino and make a lot of people very rich.

Imagine it like a game of blackjack that has been played for a while. There is some amount of cards close to 3 decks left in the pile, which started at 10 decks. I have a set of the last 40 cards played and 10 various others that have come previously in correct order, but not with their exact index. Somebody who you know was around when the blackjack game started wrote an account of the fourth 50 cards of the game and it has been copied by others, and you have some original copies, some copies of copies, and plenty of copies of copies of copies and so on.; you could believe he's telling the truth or making it all up or that someone has tampered with that account. Studies have shown that the copies have remained generally similar with mostly suits being the only differences and three copies have a 7 instead of an 8.

Is it foolish to use the extra 50 cards the guy wrote about? Is it foolish not to? Is it any more or less foolish to believe either way?

What's unrelated about it? It's a specific instance of a more general problem. That doesn't make it irrelevant.

We've already discussed, which you agreed with, that religion does not cause stupidity. It is not a specific instance of a more general problem. Lots of hot places are also dry. Is dryness a sub-problem of heat?

This is what I mean. This is why it is so incredibly frustrating for those of us who are just trying to get believers to use simple logic.[/quote]
simple logic like correlation != causation? Yea. We're really the ones struggling with that in this thread.

What part of "lack of evidence does not equal evidence of lack" is hard to understand? You obviously can't prove a negative. I've never said I have proof of God, but I'm not the one that made an absolute statement, implying that said statement was true, here.

If someone is going to call the Bible a fairly tale, not say they believe it's a fairy tale (yes, there's a difference), or make some other absolute statement about Christianity not being true, they should have proof. Otherwise the person is just being a hypocrite.

Of course, trolls don't need to follow rules, right?

This is absolutely ridiculous. By your logic it's impossible to state any negative statement at all without inserting "I believe".

So you would disagree with the following statements:

• There are not two suns
• Humans cannot fly
• Trees are not made of chocolate
• The Easter Bunny is not real
  Is this really how you life your life? If a person on the street were to ask you if the Easter Bunny was real, you'd reply "I'm not sure. But I don't believe it's real." Because a reasonable person would say "No, the Easter Bunny is not real."
  
  I think that you are being the hypocrite by imposing unrealistic requirements on us. It's absolutely reasonable to say "Fairies are not real" and "The bible is a fairy tale." These statements don't require absolute, verifiable knowledge, just as my certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow doesn't. You simply don't like the latter statement because you're in a state of self-delusion and you feel the urge to back that delusion up.

[quote name='A Brain in a Vat' timestamp='1311266379' post='4838510']
What's unrelated about it? It's a specific instance of a more general problem. That doesn't make it irrelevant.

We've already discussed, which you agreed with, that religion does not cause stupidity. It is not a specific instance of a more general problem. Lots of hot places are also dry. Is dryness a sub-problem of heat?
[/quote]
No, religion does not cause stupidity. Religion is a product of stupidity. That said, I don't think all religious people are stupid. I've converted a number of people to atheism, through discussions of this very nature.

simple logic like correlation != causation? Yea. We're really the ones struggling with that in this thread.

This is a straw man. No one has claimed that it does.

Anyway, this guilty pleasure is taking up too much of my time. I'll take my leave now. If anyone wishes to engage in a serious debate about this topic, they're welcome to PM me. I am sure most people have had enough of this thread showing up on their "Latest Content".