But should religions be held accountable for their claims?
Disputing claims and holding an entity accountable for its claims are different. Do you want to hold the Christian faith accountable for its claim of everlasting life after death or that your sins may be forgiven? How do you propose to hold them accountable for that?
Do you want to hold the Christian faith accountable for its claim of everlasting life after death or that your sins may be forgiven?
How is that claim any different from any other claim?
How do you propose to hold them accountable for that?
Well, since they can't defend it with any evidence whatsoever, it's clear that they're making a false claim. This claim thus cannot be made in any commercial speech, and furthermore must be met with an immediate null hypothesis counterclaim anytime it is made.
Wouldn't you then hold them accountable for the effects of their claims?
What are the effects of their claims? Keep in mind that if you want to hold them accountable, you need to be able to establish causation.
Do you want to hold the Christian faith accountable for its claim of everlasting life after death or that your sins may be forgiven?
How is that claim any different from any other claim?
How do you propose to hold them accountable for that?
Well, since they can't defend it with any evidence whatsoever, it's clear that they're making a false claim. This claim thus cannot be made in any commercial speech, and furthermore must be met with an immediate null hypothesis counterclaim anytime it is made.
Religious speech is not the same as commercial speech. If you want to talk about it legally, it's not analyzed in the same way at all. You might not like it, but religious speech is highly protected by the Constitution.
If you want to speak more generally, I can distinguish this claim from false claims made by products by the fact that those product claims are falsifiable. They may be tested. Further, holding an entity accountable for claims shifts the burden. It's not the manufacturer's responsibility to affirmatively prove all of the claims it makes on behalf of a product. If a regulatory agency finds they made a flase claim, the manufacturer is in trouble, but the agency is the entity that disproves the claim. This claim of forgiven sins and everlasting life cannot be tested.
Finally, where's the harm? If a product causes salmonella, there is measurable harm. If a person believe his sins will be forgiven in an afterlife, but it turns out there is no afterlife, what harm has he suffered?
Even at this shallow level of analysis, this business of holding a religion accountable for claims it makes about the afterlife is going to drag you into an argument about whether the burden shifts to you if you propose to hold them accountable, an argument about how you test an untestable claim, and finally, an argument about whether anyone is harmed by the untestable claim. It's about as meaningful as arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Aren't there more productive ways to spend your time?
Religious speech is not the same as commercial speech. If you want to talk about it legally, it's not analyzed in the same way at all. You might not like it, but religious speech is highly protected by the Constitution.
And it should be. I hate religion. I hate what it does. But protecting religious speech also protects non-religious speech and science. And if you look back on history, it's when religious beliefs are not protected that religion thrives the most. Liberalize religion, and it will choke on itself. American Christianity, at least, is slowly dying because Christians are not being oppressed. Protecting the rights of belief and practice has removed the rogue element of religion; you can see in right-wing propaganda that the desperate adherents always want to tout their status as victims: the "War on Christmas," the "anti-creationism machine," and the "horrible" liberal embracing of gay rights (the church has always been two steps behind on any civil rights issue). If you don't let religion play the victim card, they have very little else to stand on.
With the paragraph lead up to this what a loaded piece of crap question, I put this on par with when someone asks you “does your mother know you are gay?” If you say No you are gay if you say yes your gay. No way to win, accept to look the person in the eye and say PISS OFF!
It's only a loaded question if you hold that religious beliefs are literally true. If you hold that religious beliefs are literally true, then you're far beyond the scope of this question.
Also, seriously, watch your grammar and spelling. It really hurts your cause in arguing for religion if you present said arguments as you did above. Passable arguments in favor are rare enough as it is, but you're doing yourself no favors here.
It's only a loaded question if you hold that religious beliefs are literally true. If you hold that religious beliefs are literally true, then you're far beyond the scope of this question.
Also, seriously, watch your grammar and spelling. It really hurts your cause in arguing for religion if you present said arguments as you did above. Passable arguments in favor are rare enough as it is, but you're doing yourself no favors here.
Agreed. Winning an argument on this forum is ass-hard, especially since most of the people on the forums here have "been around the block" a couple of times when it comes to arguing, especially with each other. ^_^
Here's a helpful strategy to prevent the suckage of losing an argument. I would make a flow chart, but I'm lazy.
Can you win the argument? If yes, win the argument, and be awesome. If you can not win the argument, it's probably because you are wrong. Change your mind.
Here's a helpful strategy to prevent the suckage of losing an argument. I would make a flow chart, but I'm lazy.
Can you win the argument? If yes, win the argument, and be awesome. If you can not win the argument, it's probably because you are wrong. Change your mind.
[Are you Scott Rubin?] -> [Yes] -> [You win] |-> [No] -> [You lose]
Here's a helpful strategy to prevent the suckage of losing an argument. I would make a flow chart, but I'm lazy.
Can you win the argument? If yes, win the argument, and be awesome. If you can not win the argument, it's probably because you are wrong. Change your mind.
[Are you Scott Rubin?] -> [Yes] -> [You win] |-> [No] -> [Be Scott Rubin]
You know, often the things we argue about aren't about factual information (which can often be accessed to prove a point), but moral and ethical questions. In that case, what else is there to go off of but the skill of the way each side presents their case?
Really, for me, winning an argument comes down to changing the other person's mind. If they move their position closer to yours, then you have won. You can both win, or no-one can win.
To me, winning an argument is irrelevant - it is about better understanding your own point of view and learning the thoughts and philosophies of others. Regardless of swaying anyone's opinion - I am more interested in forming my own with the combined points of said argument. When an argument centers around taste, personal ethics/morals, or based on hypotheticals there is no winning, only learning.
To me, winning an argument is irrelevant - it is about better understanding your own point of view and learning the thoughts and philosophies of others. Regardless of swaying anyone's opinion - I am more interested in forming my own with the combined points of said argument. When an argument centers around taste, personal ethics/morals, or based on hypotheticals there is no winning, only learning.
I am more interested in forming my own with the combined points of said argument. When an argument centers around taste, personal ethics/morals, or based on hypotheticals there is no winning, only learning.
I am more interested in forming my own with the combined points of said argument. When an argument centers around taste, personal ethics/morals, or based on hypotheticals there is no winning, only learning.
I am more interested in forming my own with the combined points of said argument. When an argument centers around taste, personal ethics/morals, or based on hypotheticals there is no winning, only learning.
Yea, I only learn that you have no taste ^_^
This coming from you is rich indeed, Sir.
Scott Johnson certainly has taste. It's a specific kind of taste, but it is taste nonetheless. :P
I always thought of religion as a crutch that helped early mankind kind of get on its feet. I mean, people did do amazing things out of love/fear of god. And it was the only way to explain things to people who thought every volcano was the end of the world. It also helped give an easy to understand reason for people to be good and civil - you'll go to hell if you're not!
I think now we have evolved to a point where we may not need that crutch anymore. Mankind is more capable of being civil and rational without the threat of eternal damnation. And if there is a god or some other superior force to the universe, we might actually be able to begin understanding it at this phase of our existence.
I would have answered "Never" immediately, however, there is the small use of religion as a public service announcement when texts were initially released to the public. i.e. Islam and Judaism recommend that people not eat meat from pig as it caused a lot of gastroenteritis and was also a common source of endoparasites. This use supersedes any orders from any single generation of rulers. But the evils of religion generally outweigh the good especially any period after the religious texts became misleading or restraining exploration of science.
Comments
If you want to speak more generally, I can distinguish this claim from false claims made by products by the fact that those product claims are falsifiable. They may be tested. Further, holding an entity accountable for claims shifts the burden. It's not the manufacturer's responsibility to affirmatively prove all of the claims it makes on behalf of a product. If a regulatory agency finds they made a flase claim, the manufacturer is in trouble, but the agency is the entity that disproves the claim. This claim of forgiven sins and everlasting life cannot be tested.
Finally, where's the harm? If a product causes salmonella, there is measurable harm. If a person believe his sins will be forgiven in an afterlife, but it turns out there is no afterlife, what harm has he suffered?
Even at this shallow level of analysis, this business of holding a religion accountable for claims it makes about the afterlife is going to drag you into an argument about whether the burden shifts to you if you propose to hold them accountable, an argument about how you test an untestable claim, and finally, an argument about whether anyone is harmed by the untestable claim. It's about as meaningful as arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Aren't there more productive ways to spend your time?
Also, seriously, watch your grammar and spelling. It really hurts your cause in arguing for religion if you present said arguments as you did above. Passable arguments in favor are rare enough as it is, but you're doing yourself no favors here.
Losing an argument just sucks.
Can you win the argument?
If yes, win the argument, and be awesome.
If you can not win the argument, it's probably because you are wrong. Change your mind.
|-> [No] -> [You lose]
Really, for me, winning an argument comes down to changing the other person's mind. If they move their position closer to yours, then you have won. You can both win, or no-one can win.
I think now we have evolved to a point where we may not need that crutch anymore. Mankind is more capable of being civil and rational without the threat of eternal damnation. And if there is a god or some other superior force to the universe, we might actually be able to begin understanding it at this phase of our existence.
i.e. Islam and Judaism recommend that people not eat meat from pig as it caused a lot of gastroenteritis and was also a common source of endoparasites.
This use supersedes any orders from any single generation of rulers.
But the evils of religion generally outweigh the good especially any period after the religious texts became misleading or restraining exploration of science.