No refutation of the point.
You have to substantiate a point first. You can't keep arguing via ssertion and demand everyone should "refute" whatever it is you just throw out on the table.
You’re hiding from all the evidence in the websites which demonstrate:
Oh now that's rich!! So all I have to do is pull up a few dozen websites and then claim you're "hiding" from them because you don't waste your time reading them instead of me? You're the one here fighting for your cause and you can't even handle a one on one debate. You need everyone to jump in and derail for you. You can't stay on topic, and you don't want to either.
What’s the question which is unanswered?
What hypothetical scenario would reinforce your theory? Show me an example where you and I would make decisions in the same situation, whereas mine would be a dangerous decision and yours a safe one, simply because I believe in God and you don't. I've asked this several times the past couple of days.
That’s the issue much as you would like to shift the debate.
No, I have been trying to address your point but you're too busy farting around with shintoism and babbling about other irrelevant things.
Non sequitur. It has nothing to do with the statement it follows.
I didn't say its true because it "logicall follows." Just because you call religious views unjustified doesn't mean theists agree with you. They have to justify it to themselves. It is implausible that anyone would be anything if they didn't feel justified in doing so. The problem here is that you aren't being specific with your use of terms, like justified, reliable, reasonable, etc. What do you mean by justified? I think I know what you mean but I'm reluctant to launch a refutation based on assumption because I know you have your watch dogs ready to attack me with "that's not what he meant" gibberish, whileyou come in and say they're right without explaning the ambiguity yourself. Been there, done that.
Here is what it means. None is reliable.
Truth by assertion. Can't you see that this is all you're doing? I illustrated the fallacy of your thinking with analogies but you ignore them. Since no two politicians agree on everything, this means all politicians are unreliable? No two scientists agree on everything, therefore science is unreliable! Yea, that's right, keep pretending these do not matter, but they do. All are social groups that retain the same attributes in as much as human social behavior is concerned. You want to isolate religion from its context as a social structure, and toss aside everything we know from modern social science.
Each claim to be reliable.
Reliable how? What do you mean they claim to be reliable? That isn't a term I've ever heard from any missionaries. "Come join our Church, because we're reliable!" Words have meaning, but they can mean different things with different people. What do you mean by it?
In as much as they contradict one another, they are not reliable.
And the same could be said of science. There are many divisions in science just the same. You show me a scientist who says X, and I'll show you another who says Z. Sure, they agree on most important things, but so do theists.
Again, this is not something you conjured up using logic, because it is a non sequitur. This is merely something you're borrowing from amateur bloggers. One would think a professor of logic would be able to propose his own stuff without having to rely on the web nuts to make his position for him.
If you can’t attack the evidence always attack the source.
What evidence? All you did was assert.
I dare ANYONE to show me ANYTHING JAK just presented other than a friggin assertion.
Where's the evidence? Not only is he doing the truth by assertion thing, he also produces evidence by assertion.
It’s a fallacy of logic.
Everything you're saying here is for the birds. It doesn't wash with logicians.
If you plan to deny the evidence for more than 1,000 groups which call themselves Christian, let’s see your evidence.
Evidence for more than 1000 groups? You still can't get it in your head that you have produced no evidence that this matters. I never denied there were thousands of groups that have differences in beliefs. So you're still beating that straw man. What you have to do is prove to us that their existence has any bearing whatsoever, on the reliability of the claim that God exists.
All you ever do is assert something, and think we're just supposed to take it for granted that it is true. The fact that you think it is supported by evidence just because there are "websites" that allegedly say so, is just downright ridiculous.
Unless you plan to deny these groups, these different groups exist, you will need to present some evidence. You present none..
I don't need to because their existence is irrelevant. You do not know how to develop a logical argument at all.
There is no quibble. The “so what” is that we have more than 1,000 groups which call themselves Christian.
Again, so what? You're not answering. You're not explaining how this logically proves the belief in God is unreliable.
Various understandings of a truth has no bearing on the truth. It is merely a natural result of human social activity. Truth will always be independent of consensus or human diplomacy.
They all believe somewhat or very different things.
They form clusters the same as politicians and even scientists. No two agree on everything. Should we do away with science and government? Saying these don't count as valid analogies only goes to show you don't understand the topic.
“Politicians” are entirely irrelevant to the issue which you continue to dodge. It’s irrelevant.
You want it to be irrelevant because it completely refutes your argument. But you can't wish it away by assertion, just because you've had a lot of practice. Politicians represent a social order the same as any religion or group of scientists or scholars, or Puerto Ricans, etc. Your failure to understand the fundamental basics of sociology and even psychology is not our problem, but yours.
What is relevant is the fact that we have more than 1,000 groups, organizations, sects, or cults which are Christian.
Playing the broken record gambit won't work. You have to establish something first, but all you have done is assert and then continue with your circular reasoning that it is true because you say so. You're just throwing out a single fact like its supposed to mean something. Hell, did any of us really not know there are a slew of different religions out there?
They disagree. Their positions are unreliable.
But they all agree God exists. So by your logic, their unity on that belief must make their belief in God reliable?
Try to stay on topic.
I am on topic. You think you don't have a belief system? You're an atheist. Your belief is that God doesn't exist. Since your belief is not based on facts or evidence, you just declared your own belief unreliable. You have a belief system that is not more reliable than the theist. Atheists and theists are two sides of the same coin. And though some try to distinguish between hard and soft, you're a hard one anyway.
I see some atheists try to argue that theirs is not a "belief" but rather a "default position." That's pretty silly, but i understand why they'd try that little gambit. It makes their belief just as unreliable as that of a theist. I see nobody has tried to argue this after I introduced you to the dictionary.
You offer nothing in refutation. The points stand.
You have to establish a point first, which you have not done. You just throw out a theory that you would love to see realized, but so far you have done nothing to defend it or validate it. All you've done is assert that it is true because nobody can refute it. Well, I think we all know by now that you will not recognize a refutation if it bit you on your butt
There is no “straw man” here. What is it?
Do you really want me to take you by the hand and explain to you what a straw man argument is? Its when you pretend your opponent is arguing a point he really isn't, and you proceed to demolish it anyway. You've done this several times in your last few posts, challenging me to prove something I never said was true. This is just a charade.
The issue is as I have stated above and repeated throughout the debate. You are defending nothing here. Why not? Why the failure to address the issue?
I addressed the issue, but you're too stubborn to understand the sociological backdrop of religion and human social groups in general. You think it is irrelevant simply because you don't understand it. The same with psychology, you want no part of any response that involves an explanation about confirmation bias. Psychology is the science of human behavior regarding mental processes. Sociology is the study of human social behavior. With no familiarity with either, you're in no position to be discussing why humans believe what they believe or do what they do.
You're trying so hard to describe religious attributes when you're unwilling to accept the axiom that these are all human attributes. Its like a German Shephard getting upset because the poodle next door barks. Hell, they're dogs, that's what dogs do. You can't just blame poodles alone, you'd have to blame all dogs for being what they are. You're the same way, except you're really so arrogant as to believe you never engage in any of the bad reasoning that you think is unique to theists. You're doing it right now with your blind faith in your thesis.
All the stuff your complaining about would exist with or without religion, because it is human nature to disagree, socialize in clusters, believe in things without direct evidence, opine without basis, hypothesize ideas, think dimensionally, etc. This is nothing new you're presenting us, but to attack religion is an attack based in ignorance, which makes it bigotry.
Does “God” have anything to do with this discussion? If so, let’s see your characterization.
The theme of this discussion is whether or not all religions are dangerous. You don't want to discuss it. You say you do, but your kind of "discussion" amounts to a cut and paste of your thesis and a challenge for anyone to disprove it while telling us there are websites that make your case. That's your idea of "discussing" the topic.
You've done absolutely nothing beyond that, and you refuse to answer any clarifying questions or respond to any analogies that undermine your thesis.
Now, Christianity in virtually all its forms makes some kind of claim for “God.”
No chit sherlock, that's what I said. Not only are you borrowing from weird websites, now you're starting to mimick what I've already said. You really don't have a drop of original thought, do you?
[quote They don’t agree about the claims, but they make them.[/quote]
And politicians make claims about government, and scientists make claims about science, and meteorologists make drastically different claims about the weather. I guess meteorology is unreliable too? We should ignore all tornado alarms from now on?
Of course, they present no evidence for their various and contradictory claims. But they do make claims.
You figure that out all by yourself did you?
Why are those claims unreliable? There is absence of consensus in the claims.
There is absence of consensus on just about everything. Does that mean we really can't rely on much of anything? All it takes is one whacko scientist to say the moon is made of cheese, and suddenly we're all bound to "JAK logic" and have to insist knowledge about the moon is unreliable! Or perhaps you will say one doesn't mean anything. OK, how about two? Twenty? Two thousand? How do you logically reach an exact number of divergencies before something can be considered reliable? At what number is the line drawn? Who gets to say so? You? Why? Why would anyone believe your figure should count for something when your authority is the wiki and infidels.org?
Hence, no reliability for the claims.
I don't even know where to begin. You're actually telling us that truth can be changed according to consensus or lack thereof. Unbelievable.
If you want to insist the beliefs are unreliable because there are different forms, does this mean you would believe in God if there were only one religion that ever existed? (go ahead, dodge this one too)
I provided an entire page of websites in more than one place demonstrating the “Dangers of Religion.”
Webpages do not constitute reliable evidence. This is the irony. You're pretending to be a stickler for reliable sources, yet here you are passing us Karen Armstrong and any other anti-religion hack who is represented on the web. And the funny thing is, Karen Armstrong doesn't even agree with your thesis, and you still use her as an authority only to the extent that she serves your purposes in attacking Christianity. She has been arguing that Islam is inherently peaceful, and that Muhammad was like an Arabian Ghandi! (hilarious!)
Further, this just goes back to my point about sociology. Religion is a social structure developed by humans. People who share things in common are likely to socialize together, create clubs of sorts, follow guidlines, rules, principles, show loyalty to the tribe, etc. This isn't something unique to religion. It is human nature. What sets religion apart is mainly the belief in God. All the other attributes are seen in virtually hundreds of other non-religious social structures.
Now as far as your weblinks go, there is nothing reputable about them or this argument. It is an old but worn out position of uneducated atheists like yourself. Just about any tragedy in human history, you're going to point out how religion was somehow related, and ultimately, the root of the problem. Historians and sociologists consider your argument unreliable and even bigoted. You can throw logicians in that category too.
Your rant about the Crusades alone was enough to dismiss you as one speaking without any education on the matter. You've never read a book on the subject while I have five of the latest on my bookshelf. The authors I rely on are authorities in the field whereas your authorities constitute an ex-nun who has an axe to grind, and a bunch of internet whackos with no credentials to speak of.
Thus far, you have responded to none of them.
Actually I responded quite thoroughly to your Crusades and Galileo concern. You fled the scene as you usually do.
You evade addressing the issues and documentation that there are clear “Dangers of Religion.”
The issue isn't that religion can be dangerous. Hell, I know first hand that this is true. The issue is whether your premise is true, that ALL RELIGIONS are inherently dangerous. Only a bigot sees black and white - all religions are not equal in the same way not all social structures are the same.
Just what questions have you asked? You not only have ask no questions on the topic at hand, you evade the topic at hand.
Do you believe all theists present a danger? This is a very simple, yes/no question.