Logical Positivist

[i_am_i]

But philosophy and religion are differennt.

I disagree. Philosophy and religion are trying to find the same answer as science-the universal theory. As such all three subjects should be judged by the same criteria-if the theory does not hold up under the gaze of logical positivism then it should not be claimed that it is a certainty-at the most we can say we believe that this theory is correct and that evidence may be out there which can prove this belief.

Not true. Logical positivism rejects metaphysics, which includes ontology. So religion, being entirely based on metaphysical notions of being, existence, and gods, just has no place in logical positivism.

However, the theory that God is a human invention stands up very well under the "gaze of logical positivism." In fact, it passes with flying colors!

[bfat]

In other words, we may as well be arguing about the existence of unicorns or flying horses.

Well, that's sort of the parallel I was going for.  We can no more prove that there's a God than we can prove that there are unicorns.  (Hey, maybe God IS a unicorn!)  But once you have a whole crapload of people in the world believing that something exists, without any proof, you need to start asking for the real evidence.  Cause I get kind of sick of people pointing at pretty flowers and babies and stuff.   "You need to have faith" is the biggest load of unicorn dookie I've ever heard...

[i_am_i]

In other words, we may as well be arguing about the existence of unicorns or flying horses.

Well, that's sort of the parallel I was going for.  We can no more prove that there's a God than we can prove that there are unicorns.  (Hey, maybe God IS a unicorn!)  But once you have a whole crapload of people in the world believing that something exists, without any proof, you need to start asking for the real evidence.  Cause I get kind of sick of people pointing at pretty flowers and babies and stuff.   "You need to have faith" is the biggest load of unicorn dookie I've ever heard...

We don't need to prove or disprove that there's a God. We can assemble a great amount of evidence that supports the argument that God is just made up. Having done that, what else is there left to prove?

[Typist]

We can no more prove that there's a God than we can prove that there are unicorns.

Speak for yourself!  [/quote]

I agree.  We don't need to have faith in invisible pink unicorns, because we can find one right in our own house, right now, using reason and logic only, if we just try.   The real deal is, we don't want to try, because it's just too much fun proclaiming the imagined absurdity of invisible pink unicorns.  



PS:  Could I have my official troll badge now?  Puhleeeze??

[i_am_i]

We can no more prove that there's a God than we can prove that there are unicorns.

Speak for yourself!  

I agree.  We don't need to have faith in invisible pink unicorns, because we can find one right in our own house, right now, using reason and logic only, if we just try.   The real deal is, we don't want to try, because it's just too much fun proclaiming the imagined absurdity of invisible pink unicorns.  



PS:  Could I have my official troll badge now?  Puhleeeze??[/quote]

Are you trying to make a point with all this...whatever it is? If so, why not just make it?

[Typist]

Here you go:

We don't need to have faith in invisible pink unicorns, because we can find one right in our own house, right now, using reason and logic only, if we just try.