Daily encounters with the religious opiate

[Vexen]

To fellow atheists

 

The emotional comfort religious belief provides is something I observe on a daily basis. Everyday I read a Facebook post about putting your trust in God during difficult "times".

 

Personally, I have a girlfriend who is a dedicated Christian. As you can infer, I am an atheist. This contradiction in belief, at "times", plays its tole on my mind. However, I have learnt to deal with such contradictions as all my family and friends are apparently religious. Additionally, I remain, in their view, a fellow theist.

 

I'm just looking for some allies, people who are expressing this strange dilemma I encounter. Provide your story about people you know who rely on God's grace or whatever your view is on this dilemma.

 

The presumption of this discussion is that an all-caring God does not exist and a belief in such an entity is mainly, in a sense, an opiate.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Vexen

[Phi for All]

I think one has to decide what atheism means in a world where many of those around you are believers in one faith or another. Are you adamantly opposed to believing in god(s), or do you just choose not to participate? You don't have to be an anti-stamp collector, you can just choose not to collect stamps.

 

I have no problem with people having a belief in a personal god, as long as they aren't making decisions that affect me based on their religion. I wouldn't want to elect a politician who thought he was doing his god's will by starting a war or legislating against groups his religion doesn't like.

 

If someone wants to believe God cured their cancer, if it speeds their recovery, then fine. I know people like that, I'm related to people who believe like that, that their faith is somehow stronger and more reliable than all the trusted medical science. I smile and nod when they tell me how God cured them. And I DON'T tell them how lucky they are that they had cancer instead of an amputated leg, because God seems to be pretty good at curing cancer but has NEVER grown a leg back for anyone.

[Ten oz]

I honestly have a difficult time tolerating religious people the older I get. As a kid I accepted religion as a matter of culture. I did not believe in any god(s) but was under the impression that on some level believing in one was a good thing. Time has eroded that impression. I am now under the impression that religion stymies the application of intellect. Rather than allowing the wonder or confusion of not knowing something to drive one to learn it religion allows comfort in not knowing things. It affords people the ability to not feel responsible for knowledge or influence. God is out doing this that or the other and all we humans need to know is that god is good. It is a comforting thought but leads to the level of apathy we see toward science and human suffering world wide.

Most people are religious on some level. My parents, siblings, inlaws, coworkers, and so on are mostly religious. I just avoid the subject of religion around most people. However I can't avoid it 100% of the time. I drawn the line at my own home. I do not have over people whom I suspect will attempt to speak of or worship to a god(s) in my home.

[Phi for All]

I am now under the impression that religion stymies the application of intellect. Rather than allowing the wonder or confusion of not knowing something to drive one to learn it religion allows comfort in not knowing things. It affords people the ability to not feel responsible for knowledge or influence. God is out doing this that or the other and all we humans need to know is that god is good. It is a comforting thought but leads to the level of apathy we see toward science and human suffering world wide.

 

It's easier to hold on to an irrational concept if you ignore the reality that refutes it. I've wondered before if many people shun science and reason, not because it requires a great deal of intense study, but because deep down they know it would mean giving up something they've always believed in irrationally. It would explain some of the goofier anti-science sentiments.

[Ophiolite]

I'm just looking for some allies, people who are expressing this strange dilemma I encounter. Provide your story about people you know who rely on God's grace or whatever your view is on this dilemma.

My wife of thirty five years is a practicing Muslim who is becoming more devout as time passes. How do I deal with it?

I keep my mouth shut and my mind open.

 

For the record I am a devout agnostic. I think atheism is just as silly as theism. (But there is little evidence that the God of the Abrahamic religions does exist.)

[Vexen]

Ophiolite

 

Dealing with your assertion that agnosticism is a better position than atheism or theism.

 

To be uncertain whether God exists is fine.

 

Atheism is not a dogma unlike theism. I think it is highly unlikely that the Gods described by Christians, Jewish or Muslims exist. Agnosticism is not a fourth position. It is compatible with theism, atheism and deism. It is merely a postulation of uncertainty about God's existence. Personally, I know that the more information you have about a particular God, your uncertainty decreases.

 

From your answer it seems you are somewhat indifferent to people's belief. A position that most people have.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Vexen

[recursion]

To fellow atheists

 

The emotional comfort religious belief provides is something I observe on a daily basis. Everyday I read a Facebook post about putting your trust in God during difficult "times".

 

Personally, I have a girlfriend who is a dedicated Christian. As you can infer, I am an atheist. This contradiction in belief, at "times", plays its tole on my mind. However, I have learnt to deal with such contradictions as all my family and friends are apparently religious. Additionally, I remain, in their view, a fellow theist.

 

I'm just looking for some allies, people who are expressing this strange dilemma I encounter. Provide your story about people you know who rely on God's grace or whatever your view is on this dilemma.

 

The presumption of this discussion is that an all-caring God does not exist and a belief in such an entity is mainly, in a sense, an opiate.

 

I believe things objectively. Atheism, like false theism, is a conclusion of something without any logical bias, often stemming from sociological pressure.

 

A belief in a being who is going to come down and touch you and make you all better is not the same as a belief in God. A belief in God, while being interpreted many ways, is, to me, a belief in the truth. There will never be a day that the truth is not true, and in its essence, the truth is the way to the truth as in to find the truth you must truthfully search, so it's also related to sincerity. Also, in that way, it is of no semantic definition, and as it is a fundamental logical construct, its existence preceded time, for without the truth and the way to the truth being set in stone, time could never be.

 

Thus, if the word of God is true, then the truth is the word of God. The truth comes from an internal deduction of factuality or falsehood, and that truth, which is reached upon sincerely avoiding logical error, is then the word of God. You may notice the truth is consistent and not fleeting. It is immutable and eternal. A large cornerstone of the athiest argument is that nothing is not temporal (and thus it is all relative), which ignores the understanding of truthiness and its eternal consistency. Another argument is that since you cannot prove athiesm is not true, then it's true (sounds hypocritical to me if you consider their favorite attack). And another argument is that intelligence and sentience can stem from nothing -- something that has been impossible to even begin to prove (and as such without an understanding of eternality -- existence without time -- and sentience, science will stay at a standstill and athiesm will continue to repeat the same dead-end arguments).

Edited January 4, 2015 by recursion

[iNow]

I believe things objectively. Atheism, like false theism, is a conclusion of something without any logical bias, often stemming from sociological pressure.

Well, no. Atheism is simply a lack of theism. It's even right there in the word itself... A*Theism. Literally Not*Theism.

 

I know you're new here, but we've had this Same discussion here at this forum more times than I can count, generally when some well intentioned believer like yourself chooses to join and evangelize their personally preferred flavor of belief. Atheism is not an active belief there are no gods, just a lack of belief that there are. Perhaps this distinction is too subtle for some to grasp, but it's there and it's important.

 

You then further suggest, in your post above and as part of an argument in favor of theism, that atheism often stems from social pressures... Implicitly suggesting that this is a strike against it. I have to laugh given how profoundly this just screams of hypocrisy, double standards, and is really a textbook example of the extreme lack of self-awareness so common among believers who choose to join forums like this to share the good news.

 

You should note that some people have simply determined upon deep study and reflection that the god conjecture is uncompelling, lacks the extraordinary evidence that any reasonable person would expect to be in place before accepting as true such an extraordinary claim as the existence of god(s), and recognize that the human predisposition toward exaggerated and overly simplified story telling, false narratives, and our inherent tendency to accept as true that which is shared with us by parents and group leaders are all far more parsimonious explanations for why the god concept exists... That these conclusions are far more logical and rational than the conclusion that any god(s) actually do exist, however I'll-defined and all-encompassing they may be.

 

Might god(s) exist? Sure, maybe. Is the evidence before us compelling enough to operate through life on the assumption that they do, and to change our behaviors and how we treat others as a result of some pseudo-cult leaders instruction about what THEY think god(s) want? Nope.

 

 

Edited January 4, 2015 by iNow

[recursion]

Well, no. Atheism is simply a lack of theism. It's even right there in the word itself... A*Theism. Literally Not*Theism.

 

I know you're new here, but we've had this Same discussion here at this forum more times than I can count, generally when some well intentioned believer like yourself chooses to join and evangelize their personally preferred flavor of belief. Atheism is not an active belief there are no gods, just a lack of belief that there are. Perhaps this distinction is too subtle for some to grasp, but it's there and it's important.

 

You then further suggest, in your post above and as part of an argument in favor of theism, that atheism often stems from social pressures... Implicitly suggesting that this is an argument against it. I have to laugh given how profoundly this just screams of hypocrisy, double standards, and is really a textbook example of the extreme lack of self-awareness so common among believers.

 

You should note that some people have simply determined upon deep study and reflection that the god conjecture is uncompelling, lacks the extraordinary evidence that any reasonable person would expect to be in place before accepting as true such an extraordinary claim as the existence of god(s), and recognize that the human predisposition toward exaggerated and overly simplified story telling, false narratives, and our inherent tendency to accept as true that which is shared with us by parents and group leaders are all far more parsimonious explanations for why the god concept exists... That these conclusions are far more logical and rational than the conclusion that any god(s) actually exist, however I'll-defined and all-encompassing they may be.

 

Might god(s) exist? Sure, maybe. Is the evidence before us compelling enough to operate through life on the assumption that they do, and to change our behaviors and how we treat others as a result of some pseudo-cult leaders instruction about what THEY think god(s) want? Nope.

 

 

 

You spent a great deal of time saying only one thing, that athiesm, the antithesis of theism, is actually another term for "agnostism." Athiesm is the statement that there is indeed enough evidence to make the conclusion of a lack of existence of an ultimate intelligence and thus all thought and life comes from a completely unexplained phenomenon that is anything except for God. Proceeding from that, it also attempts to state that sentience is merely a physical phenomenon and everything else is an uncategorized perception (it should go without saying, in its essence, athiesm utilizes unknowns to draw strong conclusions -- conclusions that are most present in tight sociological systems -- evidence of an unfounded cultural bias). From a scientific perspective, without removing intellectual bias, there will be no progress and the athiest argument does just the opposite of that -- it adds a great deal of intellectual bias which is very frequently used to skip over accurate logic.

[iNow]

You spent a great deal of time saying only one thing, that athiesm, the antithesis of theism, is actually another term for "agnostism."

 

It will be nearly impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you if you're going to continue misusing/misunderstanding terms. Agnosticism is an issue of knowledge, whereas atheism is an issue of belief. One can be both agnostic and atheist, just as one can be both agnostic and theist.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Agnosticism

[recursion]

It will be nearly impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you if you're going to continue misusing/misunderstanding terms. Agnosticism is an issue of knowledge, whereas atheism is an issue of belief. One can be both agnostic and atheist, just as one can be both agnostic and theist.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Agnosticism

 

As this is a science forum, please keep personal emotion removed and be strict with your logic. Otherwise we'll never get anywhere.

 

A good topic that's related is the nature of belief. I provide the argument that no one believes anything except the nature of truthful deduction and we can accept notions to allow us to navigate in our environment and understand the interconnectivity of physical and ideological reality in a predictable and fairly dependable fashion. The reason for this postulation is that belief stems from what is true. At the deepest level, the person will agree with anything that is absolutely true, by definition, so also at the deepest level, the person only truthfully agrees with the truth and everything else is technically a supposition.

 

With that understanding, we understand there are no chosen beliefs, just chosen misconceptions which arrive through false logic. Thus, athiesm is not a belief, but a supposition that there is no God, based on various statements.

[iNow]

I see you also employ the techniques of evasion, nonsequitur, and red herring as part of your approach.

 

Nothing in your reply has anything to do with what I posted about your misuse/misunderstanding of terms, and that remains true no matter how many personal barbs or suggestions that I'm being emotional you introduce.

no one believes anything except the nature of truthful deduction <snip> the person only truthfully agrees with the truth

Word salad.

 

belief stems from what is true

Nope.

[Strange]

I believe things objectively.

 

You might believe that but it obviously isn't true. After all, there is no objective evidence for god or gods of any flavour.

 

Atheism, like false theism, is a conclusion of something without any logical bias, often stemming from sociological pressure.

 

I don't see how not believing in something for which there is no evidence can be regarded as illogical.

 

And what is "false theism"? People who believe in a different god/sect than you?

 

A belief in God, while being interpreted many ways, is, to me, a belief in the truth.

 

To you, that is obviously the case. However, there is no reason for anyone else to think that it is the truth. Believing in something for which there is no objective evidence is a conclusion with no logical basis.

 

Thus, if the word of God is true, then the truth is the word of God.

 

That is what is known as a tautology.

If the word of God is not true then God is a liar.

As this is a science forum, please keep personal emotion removed and be strict with your logic.

 

You just broke my irony meter.

 

At the deepest level, the person will agree with anything that is absolutely true, by definition, so also at the deepest level, the person only truthfully agrees with the truth and everything else is technically a supposition.

 

So every single religion and superstition is true (otherwise people wouldn't believe in them).

 

(I'm expecting the "no true Scotsman" fallacy as a response to this.)

 

Thus, athiesm is not a belief

 

Wow. I wasn't expecting that. You said something that is "true".

[recursion]

 

 

You might believe that but it obviously isn't true. After all, there is no objective evidence for god or gods of any flavour.

 

In reference to my statement that I believe things objectively, it is certainly true, at least to the point of maximal intention (human error aside).

 

 

I don't see how not believing in something for which there is no evidence can be regarded as illogical.

And what is "false theism"? People who believe in a different god/sect than you?

 

Let's first understand the definition of evidence. Without looking it up, we understand that evidence is a form of clear objective support for a possibility to be true. This includes logic, as all appraisals are founded on error-free logic. Thus, to claim "there is no evidence" would be to suggest that with the entire capability of all human thought, no evidence can be found. A more accurate statement would be, "I have not perceived conclusive evidence," or perhaps "there is a possibility of evidence but it is pending social agreement."

 

The second question brings up a good point. In the discussion of God's existence, we must understand a common definition of "God." In generality, God is the ultimate intelligence and the creator of the universe, thus monotheism is usually the topic, as when regarding an absolute fundamental of the construction of existence itself, there is definitively one instance for anything defined as truly "ultimate." Polytheistically, the word "god" refers to a ruler or someone of high power, so to question is a ruler or someone of high power existence would be generally considered absurd with regard to the modern intelligent consensus.

 

 

That is what is known as a tautology.

If the word of God is not true then God is a liar.

 

I am aware of tautology. Tautology is actually not an insult, btw, it is a technical existence of a form of logic. However, what I stated was technically not tautology but instead a simple definition. If you read the preceding paragraph to that statement, I was referring to the truth in its essence -- which is actually the search for truth and not a isolated fact. The process of deduction of truth is a universal phenomenon required for thinking life. Thus, the ultimate truth is, at least in large part, the actual process of finding the truth, which exists regardless of environment or language. When we understand something is true, if we are critical, independently thinking beings (many people often do exhibit the antithesis of that, but it is shunned in science), we have used the process of truthful deduction to find that. And that truth that we found, if God is the one who delivered the truth, would be the word of God. Clarifying, if there is something true and God created what we know as true (aside from the necessary existential phenomenon of "intelligent life" that is the search for truth), then the truth is the word of God. This is more a clarification of definition that a logical deduction, so I can see what it might have been mistaken for tautology (which again, is a perfectly valid logical method -- although it is mistakenly used as an insult).

 

To continue with the validity of tautology, consider a perfectly interconnected universe (or existential system, technically, as our existence goes beyond material to complex abstractions fairly removed from the material world), as such, the universe would then be a tautological universe, in that the every component is connected completely such that it is essentially a cyclical system. When cyclicity is applied to a logical system, we call it tautology.

Edited January 5, 2015 by recursion

[John Cuthber]

You say "In reference to my statement that I believe things objectively, it is certainly true, at least to the point of maximal intention (human error aside). "yet you seem to believe in an invisible friend.

 

Do you understand that your point of view is not internally consistent?

 

Re.

"Let's first understand the definition of evidence. Without looking it up, we understand that evidence is a form of clear objective support for a possibility to be true. This includes logic, as all appraisals are founded on error-free logic. Thus, to claim "there is no evidence" would be to suggest that with the entire capability of all human thought, no evidence can be found. A more accurate statement would be, "I have not perceived conclusive evidence," or perhaps "there is a possibility of evidence but it is pending social agreement.""
OK, let's cut to the chase.

You have provided no evidence.

 

 

"I am aware of tautology. Tautology is actually not an insult, btw, it is a technical existence of a form of logic. However, what I stated was technically not tautology but instead a simple definition"

No.

What you did there is ,at best, a circular definition.

It is meaningless because it's a logical fallacy.

Nobody said it's an insult- so the logical fallacy you used there is the one referred to as a straw man.

 

Do you realise that, if you can only "justify" your point of view by relying on logical fallacies, it's probably because your point of view is wrong?

[Strange]

Let's first understand the definition of evidence. Without looking it up, we understand that evidence is a form of clear objective support for a possibility to be true.

 

I assume that is the Royal "we"?

 

As evidence can be used to show that a proposition is false, your definition is pretty poor.

 

And as you never provide any evidence for any of your beliefs, opinions or assertions(*) it hardly matter what your definition of evidence is.

 

(*) As you are such an expert in logic, you will know that an assertion is an statement with no logical or evidential support..

 

This includes logic, as all appraisals are founded on error-free logic.

 

All appraisals of what? Also, logical errors are commonly made so I don't know why you can make this assertion.

 

Thus, to claim "there is no evidence" would be to suggest that with the entire capability of all human thought, no evidence can be found. A more accurate statement would be, "I have not perceived conclusive evidence," or perhaps "there is a possibility of evidence but it is pending social agreement."

 

Objective evidence doesn't depend on social agreement. That is what "objective" means. So, there is no objective evidence for your god or gods. (Maybe one day there will be, but you can't base an argument on wishful thinking.)

 

 

The second question brings up a good point.

 

Which you totally fail to answer, for some reason. (I won't bother with you personal and dubious definition of God vs gods, as it is neither relevant nor interesting.)

 

I am aware of tautology.

 

So you used it deliberately. (Your long rambling waffle doesn't stop the statement being tautological.)

 

Tautology is actually not an insult, btw, it is a technical existence of a form of logic.

 

Of course it is not an insult. Why would you say that.

 

("It is a technical existence of a form of logic". I can't decide whether to give you the benefit of the doubt as a non-native speaker, or to laugh at your mangling of English. I will go with the former, for the moment.)

[recursion]

You say "In reference to my statement that I believe things objectively, it is certainly true, at least to the point of maximal intention (human error aside). "yet you seem to believe in an invisible friend.

 

Do you understand that your point of view is not internally consistent?

 

Re.

"Let's first understand the definition of evidence. Without looking it up, we understand that evidence is a form of clear objective support for a possibility to be true. This includes logic, as all appraisals are founded on error-free logic. Thus, to claim "there is no evidence" would be to suggest that with the entire capability of all human thought, no evidence can be found. A more accurate statement would be, "I have not perceived conclusive evidence," or perhaps "there is a possibility of evidence but it is pending social agreement.""

OK, let's cut to the chase.

You have provided no evidence.

 

 

"I am aware of tautology. Tautology is actually not an insult, btw, it is a technical existence of a form of logic. However, what I stated was technically not tautology but instead a simple definition"

No.

What you did there is ,at best, a circular definition.

It is meaningless because it's a logical fallacy.

Nobody said it's an insult- so the logical fallacy you used there is the one referred to as a straw man.

 

Do you realise that, if you can only "justify" your point of view by relying on logical fallacies, it's probably because your point of view is wrong?

 

Your first statement is a bit erroneous to what I had said and in no way has God been defined in this discussion as "an invisible friend," although intelligence itself is invisible (of a system, not a specific material). If you'd like to define "friend" and "God," we can adjust the understood definition of "God" and discuss from there. I think we are referring to "God" as in an intelligent creator of what we know to exist. Remember to stay level in conversation -- anything else indicates personal unfounded bias, often through emotion and not through logic or error-free thinking.

 

For the third paragraph, I did not seek to provide evidence. That's a huge fallacy in error-free thinking, to suggest that what truly is abstract evidence (an understanding of an interrelated environmental phenomenon rather than ever specifically anything -- in material environment, everything is inter-related and codefining) is more important than logic. I can throw millions of numbers at you, but without an understanding of truth, you would get hardly little, certainly not Einstein's theory of relativity, or an understanding of uncertainty.

 

Tautology is self-definition. If you define a==b, then saying b==a is tautology. It's not a fallacy at all. Furthermore, in a interconnected material environment, everything is essentially tautological, as everything is codefining.

 

 

I assume that is the Royal "we"?

 

No, it was the general "we," as in the common person with regards to the reader of the post. It's not an unusual literary method, in fiction or non-fiction. Non-journal scientific articles included.

 

 

As evidence can be used to show that a proposition is false, your definition is pretty poor.

 

What you're referring to is acceptance of a null hypothesis, which is acceptance of truthiness nonetheless.

 

 

As you are such an expert in logic, you will know that an assertion is an statement with no logical or evidential support..

 

Your suggesting a semantic difference, not a logical difference. Remember that language is a way to share a common understanding, not simply a word puzzle.

 

 

 

 

All appraisals of what? Also, logical errors are commonly made so I don't know why you can make this assertion.

 

Clearly and what I thought was fairly obviously, I'm referring to truthful appraisal (I think it's clear I wouldn't seriously say every casual appraisal of something is true, in the strictest semantic sense).

 

 

Which you totally fail to answer, for some reason. (I won't bother with you personal and dubious definition of God vs gods, as it is neither relevant nor interesting.)

 

For reference, the question was "And what is "false theism"? People who believe in a different god/sect than you?" I admit I only answered the second half. With that answer (see my post prior to this), we can understand that the problem with the question is that we are differing on the definition of God. As mentioned, to refer to multiple gods, would be simply to refer to a higher power of any sort. And as an answer to the first question, I think definitively that is called idolatry, and is what I was considering to be "false theism."

 

 

So you used it deliberately. (Your long rambling waffle doesn't stop the statement being tautological.)

 

Please refer to my statement prior in this post regarding the nature of interconnected systems being definitively logically tautological.

 

 

("It is a technical existence of a form of logic". I can't decide whether to give you the benefit of the doubt as a non-native speaker, or to laugh at your mangling of English. I will go with the former, for the moment.)

 

I actually understand language and I am well versed in all of the rules of English, although I do sometimes deviate in my writing, particularly with commas (and dangling particles), as I feel it could be better organized. Perhaps you are still learning the fundamentals of language and are stuck on common phraseology, but what I said was in perfect form, although perhaps a bit of a tongue-twister. I suppose it could have better been said (or at least more easily read) as "it is a particular classification of logic." Calling me a foreigner would be similar to calling you a chatbot, for not recognizing language on a logical level, with strict understanding of proper semantic structure. Let's leave insulting out of this, as I feel I am too adept at this to lose such a frivolous argument and it only serves to detract from the topic.

Edited January 5, 2015 by recursion

[david345]

To have free will you must:

1. Be the cause of your actions.

2. Be the cause of yourself.

3. Know what you are doing when you create yourself.

If you are not the cause of your actions then why should you be blamed? If you are not the cause of yourself then how are you responsible for what you do? If I didn't build a car should I be responsible when it's brakes fail? If you didn't build yourself then either a. You act the way you were built to act or b. You don't act the way you were built to act. If b is correct then you still are not at fault for your actions because that can only be the case if 2 is true. Otherwise you act for no reason, random reasons, reasons other then you. 2 being true still would not be sufficient for free will to be true. You would have to know what you are doing when you create yourself. If you know nothing when you create yourself then you know nothing of the consequences of creating yourself one way or the other. You know nothing of the consequences of creating or not creating yourself.

[Strange]

What you're referring to is acceptance of a null hypothesis, which is acceptance of truthiness nonetheless.

 

No, that is not what I am referring to. I'm not even sure why you would think that (apart from the fact you, yet again, appear almost toitally ignorant of the scientific method).

 

I'm not sure how to categorise the fallacy of "well if it proves something false then that is proving the truth".

 

Clearly and what I thought was fairly obviously, I'm referring to truthful appraisal (I think it's clear I wouldn't seriously say every casual appraisal of something is true, in the strictest semantic sense).

 

Truthful appraisal of what? Your original sentence appear to be missing a referent.

 

And as an answer to the first question, I think definitively that is called idolatry, and is what I was considering to be "false theism."

 

So only polytheism is false theism? Anyone who believes in a single god is OK?

 

but what I said was in perfect form

 

As a professional writer, I generally find that when people don't understand something, it is my fault rather than theirs. But each to his own.

[John Cuthber]

 

Your first statement is a bit erroneous to what I had said and in no way has God been defined in this discussion as "an invisible friend," although intelligence itself is invisible (of a system, not a specific material). If you'd like to define "friend" and "God," we can adjust the understood definition of "God" and discuss from there. I think we are referring to "God" as in an intelligent creator of what we know to exist. Remember to stay level in conversation -- anything else indicates personal unfounded bias, often through emotion and not through logic or error-free thinking.

 

For the third paragraph, I did not seek to provide evidence.

 

Tautology is self-definition. If you define a==b, then saying b==a is tautology. It's not a fallacy at all. Furthermore, in a interconnected material environment, everything is essentially tautological, as everything is codefining.

 

 

 

No, it was the general "we," as in the common person with regards to the reader of the post. It's not an unusual literary method, in fiction or non-fiction. Non-journal scientific articles included.

 

 

Lets be clear about this.

You said

"("It is a technical existence of a form of logic"

and that doesn't make sense in English.

Also, this "Your first statement is a bit erroneous to what I had said and in no way has God been defined in this discussion as "an invisible friend,..."

Doesn't make sense.

You cant be "erroneous to" something in that way.

I'm guessing that English isn't your first language or that you are not as well schooled in it as you think.

 

Anyway, my first statement was "... yet you seem to believe in an invisible friend."

And you do seem to do so.

So, the statement is perfectly correct.

 

I'm entitled to describe God as your invisible friend if I like. Are you saying that He's not your friend, or that He's not invisible?

 

I agree that you didn't try to provide evidence. Nice of you to admit it.

However the forum's rules require you to do so.

In the end, if you don't you will probably end up barred from the site.

 

We know what a tautology is.

The point is that you can't use it as the basis for anything because that's a logical fallacy.

So you can say "Thus, if the word of God is true, then the truth is the word of God." if you wish,

but it doesn't prove anything,so there's no point saying it.

if you rely on it as evidence then you are creating a circular argument.

 

And that's what you did (tacitly) when you followed it with "The truth comes from an internal deduction of factuality or falsehood, and that truth, which is reached upon sincerely avoiding logical error, is then the word of God. You may notice the truth is consistent and not fleeting. It is immutable and eternal."

 

As I said, that's a logical fallacy.

If you can't do better than that, perhaps you should just stop.

Edited January 5, 2015 by John Cuthber