Comment by exanime@lemmy.world on Inconceivable!

Say I have 6 people all guessing a different result of a roll of a D6. It’s inconceivable that they are all right, and it’s absolutely not a “reasonable conclusion” that they are all wrong.

In this strawman, you are correct as you 1) already know there are only 6 possible answers to choose from; 2) you know at least 1 of the participants will get it right as you set the conditions to be “different results” and 3) the result is discrete and absolute.

None of the above conditions apply to religions in general… 1) we do not know how many possible right answer are there; 2) the options are endless and can overlap and 3) if one of them is right in someway, it would 100% be a matter of perspective and context

None of the above conditions apply to religions in general…

Or any kind of philosophy, for that matter. You can always play at God of the Gaps and insist the scientific worldview is incomplete. You can always lean on the Gödel’s incompleteness theorem to assert a certain amount of unknowableness in the universe.

Does that mean every effort at understanding the world around us is pointless? Or does it mean the task of building a working model of the universe is more difficult than any single lifetime - or civilization’s worth of lifetimes - can hope to accomplish?

if one of them is right in someway, it would 100% be a matter of perspective and context

Which seems like it would add some degree of value to our overarching understanding of our human condition. Something worth studying and learning from, rather than casually dismissing as wrong for being incomplete.

I have no idea what you are shooting at with this latest goal post move.

I simply stated your analogy was a poor strawman you used to attack the original point

Does that mean every effort at understanding the world around us is pointless? Or does it mean the task of building a working model of the universe is more difficult than any single lifetime - or civilization’s worth of lifetimes - can hope to accomplish?

Where the hell did I even come close to suggest the contrary?

Which seems like it would add some degree of value to our overarching understanding of our human condition.

Absolutely. Get some proof and we’ll talk. But that’s not what you want, you want to define your own version and expect the world around you to follow suit

Something worth studying and learning from, rather than casually dismissing as wrong for being incomplete.

Study it all you want. Just don’t make civil law based on it

Get some proof and we’ll talk.

Proof of lived experience and philosophical conjecture?

Proof of lived experience and philosophical conjecture?

Neither… get proof that religion is right/accurate. That is what we are talking about and what I replied with “get proof”. No need to move the goal post.

get proof that religion is right

How do you prove a moral philosophy is correct?

That’s precisely the point bud.

You cannot and therefore we should not use religion (in this instance) to write laws… it would be like banning musical genres based on my taste

I do not agree with the original quote from Hitchen that every religion must be wrong (although I do not think any are right since they are all just made up stories) but I do believe that should be left to people’s personal choice and not a centimeter more.

already know there are only 6 possible answers to choose from; 2) you know at least 1 of the participants will get it right as you set the conditions to be “different results” and 3) the result is discrete and absolute.

You are pointing out how a 6D dice is different than picking/defining a religion. I’m not saying they are the same thing, I’m giving you an example where just because it is inconceivable all answers are correct, that doesn’t mean no answer can be correct. There is no strawman in my argument, I’m just applying the logic to something we would all agree one.

we do not know how many possible right answer are there; 2) the options are endless and can overlap and 3) if one of them is right in someway, it would 100% be a matter of perspective and context

This is expanding, by leaps and bounds, the argument in the OP’s image. You are now introducing a bunch of other things. Unprovable, of course. Seriously, how could you know that being correct about a religious would be “100% a matter of perspective and context”? Why couldn’t it be just objectively and patently correct? The fact that some might be partially correct doesn’t change the fact that one could be completely correct.

This is expanding, by leaps and bounds, the argument in the OP’s image

So you are ok with Op narrowing down all religions to 6 discreet choices where one is absolute truth but I’m the one with the scope problem?

You are now introducing a bunch of other things. Unprovable, of course. Seriously, how could you know that being correct about a religious would be "100%

Well, op declared that one must be correct and therefore the actual initial argument was wrong. Lol how can you blame me for saying religion is unprobable while defending an argument that claims some religion is certainly right without an iota of proof???

So you are ok with Op narrowing down all religions to 6 discreet choices

No one narrowed anything down to 6 discreet choices. I demonstrated a case where it is inconceivable that all people are correct, while at the same time demonstrating it is completely unreasonable to claim that no one can be correct.

op declared that one must be correct

At no point did anyone claim one must be correct.

that claims some religion is certainly right

The question “why couldn’t it be” is not even remotely equivalent to the claim that “it certainly is.”

No one narrowed anything down to 6 discreet choices. I demonstrated a case where it is inconceivable that all people are correct, while at the same time demonstrating it is completely unreasonable to claim that no one can be correct.

Yes but the validity of that “demonstration” is showing an equivalent scenario, which you did not. If I claim “a bird is a living thing and flies, ergo all living things fly” I would be wrong and even if that line does apply to many living things, it is still a gross generalization.

All I am saying is that you are arguing a flawed argument with another flawed argument.

At no point did anyone claim one must be correct.

Your reduced scenario assumed one must be, otherwise you’d be agreeing with the quote posted by OP

The question “why couldn’t it be” is not even remotely equivalent to the claim that “it certainly is.”

I can… but we cannot know if that is the case so we should ALSO not be acting as if it already is right and certain

Yes but the validity of that “demonstration” is showing an equivalent scenario

I used the equivalent logic. I’m demonstrating the logic is wrong, not the conclusion.

Your reduced scenario assumed one must be

Nit picky. Change it to a million sided die and 999999 people all choose different answers. One doesn’t have to be true, but it’s still ridiculous to claim they all have to be wrong.

ALSO not be acting as if it already is right and certain

I started this whole thing by saying I lack a belief in a god because I see no evidence of one. You gotta shake the black and white thinking. Just because I recognize his logic here is garbage, that doesn’t mean I don’t agree with his conclusions.

I used the equivalent logic. I’m demonstrating the logic is wrong, not the conclusion.

By using a scenario that nowhere near resembles the original claim? that’s the part I disagree with

Nit picky. Change it to a million sided die and 999999 people all choose different answers. One doesn’t have to be true, but it’s still ridiculous to claim they all have to be wrong.

OK, 99999 side, no option is correct. How does this disprove the original claim which concluded that “none are correct”?

You gotta shake the black and white thinking.

I’m not, my initial criticism of your logic is precisely that we cannot reduce it to a simple right or wrong. Almost everything is more nuanced than that, specially religion

You’re right. Sometimes Hitchins said things that were only 6/10 smart, not 10/10. Now if you’ll excuse me I’m going to have to post a bunch of Spongebob memes to 196 to recover the karma I’m about to lose.

About

A community for the most based memes from atheists, agnostics, antitheists, and skeptics.

Rules

No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.
No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.
No bigotry.
Attack ideas not people.
Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.
No False Reporting
NSFW posts must be marked as such.