What's your religion?

[Proto]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Aren't *all* questions valid? The reason why you did not consider its validity is that you perceived it as a statement of argument,(for example) did you not?

Maybe we should start by clarifying this point, and making clear what Ascaloth has been trying to do with you all this time, since you seem to be oblivious as to what he's trying to do.

No, not all questions or reasonings are valid. Before we can start discussing and pondering about x or y philosophical issue, we have first assert the logical validity of our premises. Why is this important you ask? Because if our premises are illogical, our whole reasoning will be shaky, just like a castle whose foundations are weak.

This is where this whole fallacy issue comes in. Fallacies and the such are reasonings which have already been demonstrated to be wrong, no matter what form they take. As such, if it is demonstrated that your argument falls under a certain fallacy, it doesn't matter what you try to do, since your foundation is false, everything that directly stems from that foundations crumbles down.

Let's put forward one of the most common examples out there. Suppose that someone starts talking in favor of a certain candidate. However, that someone has had certain problems with the law in the past. As such, in order to discredit the candidate and his supporter you start personally attacking this supporter by making public all his dark past, hoping that that will destroy all his credibility.

However, this is known as an ad hominem fallacy (against the man fallacy). You are not really attacking the person arguments in favor of the candidate, you are only distracting everyone's attention from the real issue. As such, your whole reasoning, that people shouldn't support that candidate because his supporter is a dubious person falls to the ground, if that is your sole string of reasoning, because it is not logically sound.

It is the same case here. You are trying to reason and derive a certain cause by analyzing the consequence. However, as we talked before that is not possible, as per the affirming the consequent fallacy. It is known that if A implies B, this does not mean that we can derive B from A.

The important lesson we can learn from here is that if someone says that you are committing a logical fallacy with your arguments, you either have two options. You either demonstrate that you are not committing that logical fallacy, or you have to rethink your arguments in such a way that your arguments are logically sound.


[/educational capsule]

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Proto

Maybe we should start by clarifying this point, and making clear what Ascaloth has been trying to do with you all this time, since you seem to be oblivious as to what he's trying to do.

No, not all questions or reasonings are valid. Before we can start discussing and pondering about x or y philosophical issue, we have first assert the logical validity of our premises. Why is this important you ask? Because if our premises are illogical, our whole reasoning will be shaky, just like a castle whose foundations are weak.

This is where this whole fallacy issue comes in. Fallacies and the such are reasonings which have already been demonstrated to be wrong, no matter what form they take. As such, if it is demonstrated that your argument falls under a certain fallacy, it doesn't matter what you try to do, since your foundation is false, everything that directly stems from that foundations crumbles down.

Let's put forward one of the most common examples out there. Suppose that someone starts talking in favor of a certain candidate. However, that someone has had certain problems with the law in the past. As such, in order to discredit the candidate and his supporter you start personally attacking this supporter by making public all his dark past, hoping that that will destroy all his credibility.

However, this is known as an ad hominem fallacy (against the man fallacy). You are not really attacking the person arguments in favor of the candidate, you are only distracting everyone's attention from the real issue. As such, your whole reasoning, that people shouldn't support that candidate because his supporter is a dubious person falls to the ground, if that is your sole string of reasoning, because it is not logically sound.

It is the same case here. You are trying to reason and derive a certain cause by analyzing the consequence. However, as we talked before that is not possible, as per the affirming the consequent fallacy. It is known that if A implies B, this does not mean that we can derive B from A.

The important lesson we can learn from here is that if someone says that you are committing a logical fallacy with your arguments, you either have two options. You either demonstrate that you are not committing that logical fallacy, or you have to rethink your arguments in such a way that your arguments are logically sound.


[/educational capsule]

I was trying to create *peaceful* discussions(experimentation and/ or observations and/or study) by using questions, not arguments. ( I've learned *from a certain person* how its more effective).

But this is very irrelevant to the thread, I suggest a revert in discussion.

[Proto]

Dear Cipher, being able to construct logically sound arguments is the very basis for having any kind of meaningful debate. Otherwise you will go around life making castles in the air, but whatever, I'll rest my point.

What do you think about a world without religion

As sad as it is, such a thing is completely impossible given the current state of humanity. As the world is right now, religion is a necessary evil from my POV as a moral guide for most people who otherwise would resort to cynism and other worse tendencies if they did not had an absolute compass.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Proto

Dear Cipher, being able to construct logically sound arguments is the very basis for having any kind of meaningful debate.

That is, if you *want* a debate.

As sad as it is, such a thing is completely impossible given the current state of humanity. As the world is right now, religion is a necessary evil from my POV as a moral guide for most people who otherwise would resort to cynism and other worse tendencies if they did not had an absolute compass.

A necessary beneficial evil?

[Proto]

That is, if you *want* a debate.

What kind of exchange would you prefer to have in a discussion forum?

A necessary beneficial evil?

I won't deny it, it keeps the masses in check. More or less. From time to time every religion as it spanners in the works that resorts to extremism and hijacks the whole system. It is not a system without hiccups I guess.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Proto

What kind of exchange would you prefer to have in a discussion forum?

A discussion with less hostility: study and observation from questions.

I won't deny it, it keeps the masses in check. More or less. From time to time every religion as it spanners in the works that resorts to extremism and hijacks the whole system. It is not a system without hiccups I guess.

So, if it benefits humans, how is it evil then?

[Proto]

Going down that route is recycling discussion that has gone on and on in this thread, and I'm not about to enter that endless loop myself. Check what a bajillion other posters have to say in this thread about the evils of religion.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Proto

Going down that route is recycling discussion that has gone on and on in this thread, and I'm not about to enter that endless loop myself. Check what a bajillion other posters have to say in this thread about the evils of religion.

The evils of religion versus the benefits of religion. Which do you think is greater? If one is greater than the other, although still having aspects of the opposite, does it not form a sort of 5 - 3 = 2?---which is a positive? or a -5 + 3 = -2? which is a negative?

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Proto

Going down that route is recycling discussion that has gone on and on in this thread, and I'm not about to enter that endless loop myself. Check what a bajillion other posters have to say in this thread about the evils of religion.

Nani ga okashii~

Originally Posted by Cipher

The evils of religion versus the benefits of religion. Which do you think is greater? If one is greater than the other, although still having aspects of the opposite, does it not form a sort of 5 - 3 = 2?---which is a positive? or a -5 + 3 = -2? which is a negative?

You just do not take a hint, do you, kid?

False analogy. The positive/negative effects of a particular social phenomenon is not equivalent to a mathematical equation.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

You just do not take a hint, do you, kid?

False analogy. The positive/negative effects of a particular social phenomenon is not equivalent to a mathematical equation.

So it doesn't. But is religion truly to blame? Is it not only *humans*, who have brains and are the ones doing the actions, who are truly at fault?

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Cipher

So it doesn't. But is religion truly to blame? Is it not only *humans*, who have brains and are the ones doing the actions, who are truly at fault?

Denying the correlative. If your premise is that religion has either a net positive effect or a net negative effect, what does the effects of human interpretation have anything to do with what kind of net effect religion has?

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

If your premise is that religion has either a net positive effect or a net negative effect, what does the effects of human interpretation have anything to do with what kind of net effect religion has?

Your right. if it doesn't have a negative, it doesn't have a positive. It depends on the humans. Do you think there are better solutions in creating good morality other than religion? One that won't have this "evil"?

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Your right. if it doesn't have a negative, it doesn't have a positive. It depends on the humans. Do you think there are better solutions in creating good morality other than religion? One that won't have this "evil"?

Already exists. It's called the social contract theory. Humanity has been postulated to form states and maintain social order out of collective self-interest. Religion is not a critical component in that theory of self-organization.

If morality and social order is impossible without religion, then secular states could not possibly exist. Clearly this is not the case.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Already exists. It's called the social contract theory. Humanity has been postulated to form states and maintain social order out of collective self-interest. Religion is not a critical component in that theory of self-organization.

If morality and social order is impossible without religion, then secular states could not possibly exist. Clearly this is not the case.

I see. So, on end, religion does not create any positive? and what it does is only create negatives?

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Cipher

I see. So, on end, religion does not create any positive? and what it does is only create negatives?

The way I see it, religion is a multipurpose tool. I do not deny that it can be used for good. Yet for some reason, it's particularly susceptible to being utilized towards undesirable ends; the Abrahamic religions in particular. Must be the whole 'blind faith' thing.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

The way I see it, religion is a multipurpose tool. I do not deny that it can be used for good. Yet for some reason, it's particularly susceptible to being utilized towards undesirable ends.

Its a tool, but we can live without that tool, no?

With the Abrahamic religions, I believe its because of its power due to its widespread popularity, is it not?

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Cipher

Its a tool, but we can live without that tool, no?

The increasing secularization of modern-day society seems to suggest that.

[james0246]

Isn't this conversation steering a little to far afield of the intentions for this thread?

I am still presently an agnostic, but I do sometimes wonder if my agnosticism is due to my apathy and relative enjoyment with life that I find myself a little uncaring of the various relgious doctrines, etc.

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by james0246

Isn't this conversation steering a little to far afield of the intentions for this thread?

Really? Is this thread merely focused on the simply "state your religion" topic?


If that's so: I'm obviously a theist who has faith on both this "reality" and a greater "reality" where God exists. I don't know how far we can go with that.

[james0246]

^With a title like "What's Your Religion?" wouldn't that be obvious? Arguing for ones faith is one thing (since that would directly relate to explaining what your relgious beliefs may be), but having a discussion as to the validity of religion or the Socratic method (just to name the recent turns in the conversation) is something else entirely...