Reasoning Errors

[TagliatelliMonster]

We don't look at a rock and find that rock speaks out and says I'm 100 million years old.

Indeed we don't.

Instead, we gather up all the knowledge we have about rocks and atoms and use that knowledge to date said rock in rather objective ways.

You see according to Evolutionary scientists things just came into being.

Not "just". But through the slow, gradual process of evolution.
That's not "just". It's in fact rather detailed with great explanatory power.

The Big Bang theory has been popular for quite a while. According to that theory we live in a random chance universe

Big bang theory says nothing of the sort.
It's a model about the development of the universe.

That's why Evolution can't account for the uniformity of nature or logic.

It's not even intended to do so. Evolution is a model that accounts for biological diversity and nothing else.

Perhaps you should inform yourself on these models first.

You see, you said you trust methodological objective testing. However, that testing relies on the Uniformity of Nature.

Yup. If nature weren't uniform, methodological testing wouldn't work.
But it does work...

If nature wasn't uniform then the testing results wouldn't be the same each time the test was performed.

Exactly. It works.

Evolution can't account for this.

Macaroni and cheese also doesn't account for it.
Equally relevant.

From an Evolutionists point of view we shouldn't expect the results to be the same next time.

That makes no sense at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have a hard time understanding why someone would increase their skepticism when things become important to them.

Huh?

The alternative would be the increase your gullibility.

If it concerns something important, then I'ld have all the more reason to make sure my beliefs are as accurate as possible.

Increasing my gullibility and/or lowering my standard of evidence, is not going to lead to more accurate beliefs. On the contrary, actually.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Actually, it does explain the uniformity of nature, but logic is subjective

False. Logic is empiricaly based. Which is as objective as it gets.

Our "logic" is defined by the facts of reality, not by our preferences.

 

[KWCrazy]

False. Logic is empiricaly based. Which is as objective as it gets.
Our "logic" is defined by the facts of reality, not by our preferences.

Different people have different views of reality. Some people believe in naturalism. Naturalism is dispelled by a single spiritual event. There have been millions, which makes naturalism an untenable mindset. Yet the naturalist chooses to ignore them and pretend they never happened to continue his pre-conceived idea of how the world works. What is logical for him is illogical to the rest of us. Thus, logic is subjective.

We know that no force within the universe could have created the universe and yet we look for ways in which maybe somehow everything could have auto-created itself from nothingness without assistance from an outside Creator. Some are so convinced they assign origination dates and declare that the earth is 13.5 billion years old. However they still have no explanation as to how any of this takes place. So they claim to know for when something came about without having a clue what process could have cause it. They base much of this on the circular reasoning that it would take billions of years for an auto-created planet to have the conditions ours does and therefor the planet is billions of years old. The existence of God is problematic. God could make another world just like this one at any time. If that's the case and he made this world exactly like a previous world, what does that do to our dating theories?

No, universal logic is based only on universal truth and the only universal truth is that the Lord Jesus Christ; the son of God; took on human flesh and became for us the perfect sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins. Compared to that truth, all else becomes foolishness.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Different people have different views of reality. Some people believe in naturalism. Naturalism is dispelled by a single spiritual event. There have been millions, which makes naturalism an untenable mindset. Yet the naturalist chooses to ignore them and pretend they never happened to continue his pre-conceived idea of how the world works.

I can't ignore that which isn't even demonstrably real.
The undemonstrable and the non-existant are indistinguishable from one another...

What is logical for him is illogical to the rest of us. Thus, logic is subjective.

Just because some people employ fallacious logic does not mean that logic itself is subjective.

Logic is as objective as it gets. It is empirically based and it reflects our knowledge of how reality works.

We didn't invent out of thin air that if A > B and B > C, then A > C.
Instead, we observed, concluded and learned such things from empirical data and through mathematical proofs.

Logic is concluded/derived from knowledge, not arbitrarily decided.

We know that no force within the universe could have created the universe and yet we look for ways in which maybe somehow everything could have auto-created itself from nothingness without assistance from an outside Creator. Some are so convinced they assign origination dates and declare that the earth is 13.5 billion years old.

The earth is 13.5 billion years old, ha? lol
Saying such things only further exposes just how utterly uninformed you are.

God could make another world just like this one at any time.

Well, poke me when that happens.

No, universal logic is based only on universal truth and the only universal truth is that the Lord Jesus Christ; the son of God; took on human flesh and became for us the perfect sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins. Compared to that truth, all else becomes foolishness.

Uhu. Perhaps you should stop preaching and instead address the points being made.

 

[KWCrazy]

I can't ignore that which isn't even demonstrably real.
The undemonstrable and the non-existant are indistinguishable from one another...

You're talking about demonstrated to you. Who are you in relation to the earth? A fly spec? The existence of God and spiritual beings has been well demonstrated to me and many around me. So we who have seen evidence of the spiritual see as foolishness your claims from ignorance that no such things exist. Many in this forum have seen and experienced things which have no natural explanation. There are entire threads devoted to these things. Have you read them, or do you contend that they do not exist?

There are other things you can read; stories of skeptics who in their skepticism called on Satan to send a demon; stories of ouija boards making contact with spirits that refuse to go away. You can find many of these stories and maybe most of them are fake... but not all.

Just because some people employ fallacious logic does not mean that logic itself is subjective.

Were logic not subjective we would all be in 100% agreement on most things.

We didn't invent out of thin air that if A > B and B > C, then A > C.
Instead, we observed, concluded and learned such things from empirical data and through mathematical proofs.

Conversely, if A=impossible and B = impossible then both A = B; equally impossible. The six day creation is no mxore or less than the virgin birth or the resurrection. Christians who believe in one and reject another because science says it can't happen are committing a logical fallacy.

The earth is 13.5 billion years old, ha? lol
Saying such things only further exposes just how utterly uninformed you are.

Why is one arbitrary number better than the next? The Scriptures give a timeline which gives us a pretty good idea of how old the earth is. if you reject that and opt for a different number, what difference does it make what number you use? They are equally wrong.

Perhaps you should stop preaching and instead address the points being made.

Which forum is this in again?

 

[Khalliqa]

Off topic, but just FYI: I seem to experience the same problem ever since the new UI went live. I think it is a browser issue. When the "reply to" page is open for too long, the page seems to automatically refresh itself, loosing everything you typed already.

So for longer posts, I resorted to typing them up in notepad and copy-pasting.

Gracias. That's a more efficient way.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Data and observable processes are not assumed. They are observed.

So you assume.

Who's "they"?

You tell me, it was in reply to your post

Common ancestry.

That far from answers the question...very far.

See? False dichotomy. Combined with a strawman. Combo points!

No... False dichotomies, strawmen and arguments from ignorance / incredulity, are not enough. And it's not "odd" - it's rational.

Textbook argument from ignorance/incredulity.

Oh goodness, such intelligent sounding words you seem to have to always pin on a bit of common sense logic. Even after all that, it doesn't mean what I said was the least bit wrong. It is not an argument one is not more likely than the other, just a wordy thing designed to hide the cop out.

Curious, does that stuff really have a positive affect on people, I mean besides yourself? IOW, does it have the "Golly gee, he talks purdy, he must be right" affect, even when you are not?

 

[zippy2006]

So instead of fallacy A, it's fallacy B.

An argument from authority is not a fallacy.

Here's a nice photograph

I'm also looking at a gadget on my desk here that says "made in australia".

Also: kangaroo's and koala bears.

That's wonderful that you have faith in the person who produced the photograph and the sources that told you about kangaroos.

Faith-based evidence, is a contradiction in terms.

Evidence based on the testimony of another is a contradiction in terms? Of course it is not.

My acceptance that Australia is a real country and actual exists, is based on extremely solid evidence. Eventhough I've never been there, I'm as certain that it exists as I am that the country I live in exists.

Thanks be to faith.

But I could. That's the point.

No, it's not the point. If faith is belief based on the testimony of another, and you believe in Australia based on the testimony of others, then your belief is faith-based. (By the way, that's called a syllogism, and I've never seen you produce one)

 

[variant]

It's not my fault if you don't understand. You're the one living in the make believe world, oblivious to the evidence around you and in complete denial of a 6,000 year history of man's interaction with his Creator. To a person with an open mind, no proof is needed. For a closed mind, no proof is enough. You scoff at things you don't understand and pretend to be wise while drowning in your own foolishness. You remind me of a person in water to their waist loudly proclaiming that the ship is not sinking. You hold to a world view that is untenable in reality. It's funny. Atheists seem to believe that they are more enlightened than people of faith. However those of us who have seen things with our own eyes and experienced things in our lives that no science could ever explain no a truth that the deniers will never understand. All the wisdom of atheists remains grand foolishness to those who have known and experienced the presence of God. I'm not sure why so many of you descend upon us and try to convince us of things which we know to be false. We have a greater truth. Surely you believe in the things you say. Sadly, they have no relationship with the greater reality of our existence.

For a good reference to the thread...

Now here we have examples of the following:

Poisoning the well.
Assertions without evidence.
Begging the question.
Circular reasoning.
Straw-man arguments.

I underlined them for you so you can sort them out on your own time.

My suggestion is that you're going to have to try harder to find common ground if you wish to actually convince people rather than just railing at them like this.

You can assert things without evidence all day if you like, It doesn't demonstrate much of anything except how convinced you are of your own conclusions.

Why should I care what your conclusions are when they are based upon appeals like this?

If what you say is true and a God sent you to me with that as your attempt to "enlighten" me then that God obviously incompetent, and hasn't the first clue how to talk to me.

 

[KWCrazy]

If what you say is true and a God sent you to me with that as your attempt to "enlighten" me then that God obviously incompetent, and hasn't the first clue how to talk to me.

You flatter yourself.
I do not pretend that I am going to get atheists to see the light. My reason for refuting the things that you say is so that poison won't go unchallenged and undermine the faith of a Christian who is bombarded from the lies of the world and starts to question the truth of the word.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

An argument from authority is not a fallacy.

"X is true because Y says it is" = fallacy.

That's wonderful that you have faith in the person who produced the photograph and the sources that told you about kangaroos.

So, basically, you just call anything and everything that one might accept as accurate for whatever reason as being "faith".

Evidence based on the testimony of another is a contradiction in terms? Of course it is not.

It's a contradiction in terms because in the context of what we are actually talking about, faith is what you require when you have no evidence.

And for the record: "testmony" is the lowest possible form of evidence there is.

Thanks be to faith.

Nope. Thanks be to evidence.

No, it's not the point.

I think I know better what my point is, then you.

If faith is belief based on the testimony of another,

I'm not basing it on "testimony".
I'm not relying on the word of humans that it exists.

and you believe in Australia based on the testimony of others,

Nope. I accept it based on evidence that isn't dependend on anyone's opinions.

then your belief is faith-based.

It would be if you were right about what I base my acceptance on that Australia exists. But you aren't. So it isn't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You're talking about demonstrated to you.

No, in general.

Many in this forum have seen and experienced things which have no natural explanation.

Argument from ignorance. If there is no explanation, then there is no explanation.

There are entire threads devoted to these things. Have you read them, or do you contend that they do not exist?

No, I'm fully aware that plenty of people have all kinds of experiences that they can't explain and then just resort to attributing it to the supernatural, magic, aliens, poltergeists, etc

It's called superstition.

There are other things you can read; stories of skeptics who in their skepticism called on Satan to send a demon; stories of ouija boards making contact with spirits that refuse to go away.

...and alien abductions, attacks by the Krakken, loch ness monsters, bigfoot, ...

You can find many of these stories and maybe most of them are fake... but not all.

How do you tell the fakes ones from the correct ones?

Were logic not subjective we would all be in 100% agreement on most things.

No. If all people would use logic correctly (or equally incorrectly), we would all be in 100% agreement.

Take math for example. Math isn't subjective. But when doing math, you can make mathematical mistakes and end up with a different answer.

Conversely, if A=impossible and B = impossible then both A = B; equally impossible.

How does that qualify as "conversely" and how is it even relevant?

The six day creation is no mxore or less than the virgin birth or the resurrection

We agree there. Probably for different reasons though.

Why is one arbitrary number better than the next?

Ages determined by science are, off course, not arbitrary.
They are conclusions from carefull measurements.

The Scriptures give a timeline which gives us a pretty good idea of how old the earth is.

Scriptures are the words of men, written by people who didn't even know that the earth orbits the sun.

if you reject that and opt for a different number, what difference does it make what number you use? They are equally wrong.

One is the result of stories.
The other the result of carefull measurements.

To call them "equally wrong" is hilarious.

Which forum is this in again?

A debate and discussion forum.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you assume.

No. Observation isn't the same as assumption.

That far from answers the question...very far.

I was talking about genetic lineage. And if you wish to have a more detailed picture, there are enough resources online. Here's one example:

Oh goodness, such intelligent sounding words you seem to have to always pin on a bit of common sense logic

Sorry but when you engage in logical fallacies, all I can do in reply is to point them out.

Even after all that, it doesn't mean what I said was the least bit wrong.

Except that it does. A logically fallacious point, is an invalid point.

It is not an argument one is not more likely than the other, just a wordy thing designed to hide the cop out.

There's no cop out.
If you make invalid arguments, then you make invalid arguments... what do you want me to tell you?

Curious, does that stuff really have a positive affect on people, I mean besides yourself? IOW, does it have the "Golly gee, he talks purdy, he must be right" affect, even when you are not?

It has a positive effect on those people who are actually concerned about rational argumentation in support of their beliefs.

Let's ask you the same question...
Do you actually have success in preaching to a skeptic by using logically fallacious argumentation?

 

[KWCrazy]

No, in general.

The fact is, in America 85% believe in God. That makes you part of a small minority who rejects what most people accept. It's not "in general." It's "in your world."

If there is no explanation, then there is no explanation.

Keyword; natural. If an angel comes up to you and tells you God loves you then disappears, there is an explanation. It is not, however, a natural explanation.

No, I'm fully aware that plenty of people have all kinds of experiences that they can't explain and then just resort to attributing it to the supernatural...

And what if they are supernatural?
If God is real and His angels are real then so too is the devil and his demons. Deny this and you deny about 90% of the history of our existence.
Consider this. If one such encounter is real, then everything you have ever believed is foolishness. Personally, I've known people who played around trying to contact spirits, and what they encountered scared the daylights out of them. These fears are not manufactured, my friend, nor are they created to make the person look tough.

Personally, I have encountered the supernatural; both through the Holy Spirit and by unholy spirits. The world is not hidden from the believer. Satan has no reason to pretend he doesn't exist because we know better. Talk to any old minister and ask him what he's seen. I dare you.

By the way, no atheist ever takes me up on that dare.

How do you tell the fakes ones from the correct ones?

The easiest way is in person, so you can see their eyes. Beyond that you watch for changes in the details during re-telling. If the details change with the audience, the story is untrue.

Ages determined by science are, off course, not arbitrary.
They are conclusions from carefull measurements.

Measurements taking with no known beginning point. You can demonstrate the half life of radioactive carbon but you can't demonstrate the origination of carbon. It's like trying to guess someone's age when you have no idea when they were born.

Scriptures are the words of men, written by people who didn't even know that the earth orbits the sun.

The Bible is the inspired words of the Creator, by whose hands we have the sun. It is not a book on cosmology. [/quote]

To call them "equally wrong" is hilarious.

Any estimates that do not equal the truth are equally wrong. What part of that is unclear?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The fact is, in America 85% believe in God.

And 100% of them, require "faith" to uphold those beliefs.
They require this "faith" because their beliefs aren't demonstrable.

That makes you part of a small minority who rejects what most people accept. It's not "in general." It's "in your world."

Just because people believe X, it doesn't mean that X is demonstrable or that believing it is a rational position.

Keyword; natural. If an angel comes up to you and tells you God loves you then disappears, there is an explanation. It is not, however, a natural explanation.

- the person is lying
- the person is mistaken
- the person was hallucinating
- ...

There's a whole bunch of plausible natural explanations. I'll add that you assume any one of those in most situations. Take for example the claim that an angel appeared to Muhammed and dictated the quran to him. I'm sure you don't loose any sleep over that one.

Failing to support any of these plausible explanations, still leaves you with no explanation.
Merely claiming "it's an angel!" is not an explanation at all. That's just some random assertion.

And what if they are supernatural?

What if we are all just brains in vats?

If God is real and His angels are real then so too is the devil and his demons.

If Lord Xenu is real and our bodies really are physical prisons for our pure energy inner selves, then we are all immortal Thetans who should join scientology.

Deny this and you deny about 90% of the history of our existence.

I'm not denying anything. I fully accept that throughout history and in the present, all kinds of people believed all kinds of rather crazy things.

Consider this. If one such encounter is real, then everything you have ever believed is foolishness.

Consider this. If all such encounters are just the result of the human tendency to infuse purpose and intent in everything through superstitious means, then everything you have every believed is foolishness.

I'll add that it's infinitely more likely that all such claims are wrong as opposed to a small number of them being true.

Personally, I've known people who played around trying to contact spirits, and what they encountered scared the daylights out of them.

Yeah. People are very good at self-deception.

These fears are not manufactured, my friend, nor are they created to make the person look tough.

Like I said, I don't doubt people's sincerity about their experiences or their beliefs.
I think the average muslim indeed really believes the claims of Islam.
That doesn't mean his beliefs are accurate.

Personally, I have encountered the supernatural;

I'm sure you believe that you did.
Just like I'm sure that the alien abductees really believe they were abducted.

The world is not hidden from the believer. Satan has no reason to pretend he doesn't exist because we know better

Yes, yes. It's really interesting to note that the christian entities only ever show up in the lives of christians, while the hindu entities only ever show up in the lives of hindu's.

It's, for example, not at all surprising to me that when westerners first said foot in latin america, the native people there had no clue about anything concerning abrahamic religions.

Talk to any old minister and ask him what he's seen. I dare you.

Talk to any hindu, scientologist or muslim and ask him what he's seen. I dare you.

By the way, no atheist ever takes me up on that dare.

Probably because an atheist understand the futility of such an exercise.

The easiest way is in person, so you can see their eyes. Beyond that you watch for changes in the details during re-telling. If the details change with the audience, the story is untrue.

Sounds like a reliable methodology that you have there. Haha.

Measurements taking with no known beginning point. You can demonstrate the half life of radioactive carbon but you can't demonstrate the origination of carbon.

You should read up on physics. More specifically the progress it has made since the early 1900s.

It's like trying to guess someone's age when you have no idea when they were born.

It's kind of funny, because science actually can give you pretty accurate estimates about how old a person is, based only on a few measurements of the teeth and a couple of strategically chosen bones and tissues.

The Bible is the inspired words of the Creator, by whose hands we have the sun.

If you say so.
Muslims say their scriptures were directly dictated by this creator, not just "inspired"
I guess that means that the quran must be more accurate then the bible.
Especially if we apply your "methodology" described above... After all, the details don't change when they re-tell this story.

Any estimates that do not equal the truth are equally wrong. What part of that is unclear?

There are various levels of accuracy.
Not everything is "equally likely" or "equally wrong", just because no "absolute certainty" happens to be present (or even possible).

Consider a jar of marbles.
I could estimate that there are around 30 marbles in the jar.

It will likely not be the correct number, but it sure won't be "equally wrong" to saying that there are a billion marbles in the jar.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No. Observation isn't the same as assumption.

Let me give example of what I mean here. Evolution is based on the earth being billions of years old, while there is plenty of disagreement out there on if carbon dating or whatever is reliable. You choose to "assume" the side that says it's reliable is correct, I choose not to. So until you can prove it is....we are dealing with assumptions somewhere down the line and that's just one example. Prove the earth is millions of yrs old or stop making any claims that are based on that as a fact.

IOW, you "observe" the earth is billions of yrs old...nope you just assume it is.

I was talking about genetic lineage. And if you wish to have a more detailed picture, there are enough resources online. Here's one example:

I wasn't, I was talking about what you stated originally, something to the effect of "where did life come from?", if not exactly that.

Sorry but when you engage in logical fallacies, all I can do in reply is to point them out.

If you insist on hiding behind that junk as a defense, I'm going to have to stop replying to anything that includes it, as in what follows this post.

It's not a fallacy unless you can prove it is untrue, you cannot, so the term in itself is a fallacy. At the very least, the logic in ID makes a lot more sense than, we all just came to be for no known reason/no known start, then evolved and made ourselves from something unknown. ID sounds *much* more likely than that mess, but beware, I'm using logic there. And since we didn't see either one of them happen, think I'll go with what is logically sound.

If you are right, I've lost nothing, If I am right, I have lost nothing, and you have lost everything. See the logic in that?

Except that it does. A logically fallacious point, is an invalid point.

No. Observation isn't the same as assumption.

I was talking about genetic lineage. And if you wish to have a more detailed picture, there are enough resources online. Here's one example:

Sorry but when you engage in logical fallacies, all I can do in reply is to point them out.

Except that it does. A logically fallacious point, is an invalid point.

It has a positive effect on those people who are actually concerned about rational argumentation in support of their beliefs.

Let's ask you the same question...
Do you actually have success in preaching to a skeptic by using logically fallacious argumentation?

No. Observation isn't the same as assumption.

I was talking about genetic lineage.

Sorry but when you engage in logical fallacies, all I can do in reply is to point them out.

Except that it does. A logically fallacious point, is an invalid point.

There's no cop out.
If you make invalid arguments, then you make invalid arguments... what do you want me to tell you?

It has a positive effect on those people who are actually concerned about rational argumentation in support of their beliefs.

Let's ask you the same question...
Do you actually have success in preaching to a skeptic by using logically fallacious argumentation?

 

[KWCrazy]

And 100% of them, require "faith" to uphold those beliefs.
They require this "faith" because their beliefs aren't demonstrable.

Again, demonstrable to whom?
For a person who has encountered the Holy Spirit your contention that no such entity exists can be nothing more than the foolish rambling of the unenlightened.

Just because people believe X, it doesn't mean that X is demonstrable or that believing it is a rational position.

Exactly. Your position, given the existence of God, is hardly a rational position.

- the person is lying
- the person is mistaken
- the person was hallucinating

The possibility that you could be wrong never comes up, does it?
That's why debating with atheists is a complete waste of time. They have an entirely different view of the world that denies most of reality.

Take for example the claim that an angel appeared to Muhammed and dictated the quran to him.

What facet of Mohammed's personality would indicate that he isn't a liar?

Merely claiming "it's an angel!" is not an explanation at all. That's just some random assertion.

No, if it IS an angel it is a statement of fact. Claiming that a dog is an angel would be random assertion.

I fully accept that throughout history and in the present, all kinds of people believed all kinds of rather crazy things.

The craziest of which is this foolish contention that there is no God.

I'll add that it's infinitely more likely that all such claims are wrong as opposed to a small number of them being true.

And you wonder why we consider your beliefs foolishness.

Talk to any hindu, scientologist or muslim and ask him what he's seen. I dare you.

What makes you think I haven't.

Probably because an atheist understand the futility of such an exercise.

No, they're scared to death they might learn that God is real.

It's kind of funny, because science actually can give you pretty accurate estimates about how old a person is, based only on a few measurements of the teeth and a couple of strategically chosen bones and tissues.

Humans have a known beginning and a provable starting point; they were born.
What is the starting point of a rock? How did it originate? When did it originate? Not knowing the how, you cannot determine precisely when. You can only guess.

There are various levels of accuracy.
Not everything is "equally likely" or "equally wrong", just because no "absolute certainty" happens to be present (or even possible).

Wrong is wrong. Being closer to right is still wrong. Getting most of the way through a minefield means you're still just as dead as the guy who took two steps. If a lottery pays out only for the correct numbers getting close means nothing.

 

[Khalliqa]

The problem with using evidence is that it is world view dependent. All evidence is evaluated based on one's worldview. The real question that should be addressed is which worldview can logically be sustained? From my logical conclusion only the Christian world view is possible. As an atheist what is your basis for logic?

How are you defining worldview?

And what besides a world view is just as important?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And 100% of them, require "faith" to uphold those beliefs.
They require this "faith" because their beliefs aren't demonstrable.



Just because people believe X, it doesn't mean that X is demonstrable or that believing it is a rational position.

- the person is lying
- the person is mistaken
- the person was hallucinating
- ...

There's a whole bunch of plausible natural explanations. I'll add that you assume any one of those in most situations. Take for example the claim that an angel appeared to Muhammed and dictated the quran to him. I'm sure you don't loose any sleep over that one.

Failing to support any of these plausible explanations, still leaves you with no explanation.
Merely claiming "it's an angel!" is not an explanation at all. That's just some random assertion.

What if we are all just brains in vats?

And what if we could all just read Hillary Putnam?

If Lord Xenu is real and our bodies really are physical prisons for our pure energy inner selves, then we are all immortal Thetans who should join scientology.



I'm not denying anything. I fully accept that throughout history and in the present, all kinds of people believed all kinds of rather crazy things.



Consider this. If all such encounters are just the result of the human tendency to infuse purpose and intent in everything through superstitious means, then everything you have every believed is foolishness.

I'll add that it's infinitely more likely that all such claims are wrong as opposed to a small number of them being true.



Yeah. People are very good at self-deception.



Like I said, I don't doubt people's sincerity about their experiences or their beliefs.
I think the average muslim indeed really believes the claims of Islam.
That doesn't mean his beliefs are accurate.


I'm sure you believe that you did.
Just like I'm sure that the alien abductees really believe they were abducted.

Yes, yes. It's really interesting to note that the christian entities only ever show up in the lives of christians, while the hindu entities only ever show up in the lives of hindu's.

It's, for example, not at all surprising to me that when westerners first said foot in latin america, the native people there had no clue about anything concerning abrahamic religions.



Talk to any hindu, scientologist or muslim and ask him what he's seen. I dare you.



Probably because an atheist understand the futility of such an exercise.



Sounds like a reliable methodology that you have there. Haha.


You should read up on physics. More specifically the progress it has made since the early 1900s.




It's kind of funny, because science actually can give you pretty accurate estimates about how old a person is, based only on a few measurements of the teeth and a couple of strategically chosen bones and tissues.


If you say so.
Muslims say their scriptures were directly dictated by this creator, not just "inspired"
I guess that means that the quran must be more accurate then the bible.
Especially if we apply your "methodology" described above... After all, the details don't change when they re-tell this story.



There are various levels of accuracy.
Not everything is "equally likely" or "equally wrong", just because no "absolute certainty" happens to be present (or even possible).

Consider a jar of marbles.
I could estimate that there are around 30 marbles in the jar.

It will likely not be the correct number, but it sure won't be "equally wrong" to saying that there are a billion marbles in the jar.