Can the Religious Be Trusted?

[FlashDangerpants]

Flash, your tone and arguments are as tiresome as they are disingenuous. Let’s not dance around the fact that you’re more invested in semantic quibbling and vague accusations than in addressing the core issue. You keep harping on about "falsification" and "humility," but the irony here is staggering. Your entire response reeks of someone who refuses to engage with the argument in good faith while accusing others of arrogance.

You take everything too personally. Perhaps that is why you try too hard to make everything personal.

You claim determinism is unfalsifiable. That’s nonsense. Determinism is grounded in the laws of physics—cause and effect, conservation of energy, and momentum—all of which have been repeatedly verified through observable phenomena. If anyone could present evidence of causeless events in the macro world, determinism would collapse. That hasn’t happened. You, on the other hand, sit back and throw baseless philosophical darts without offering a shred of substantive evidence to the contrary. If you’re so eager to dismiss determinism as "faith-based," perhaps you could actually engage with the evidence that supports it instead of parroting the same tired lines about inference.

What if it's true of everything except human volition? All of the actual evidence you have is compatible with that, it's your theoretical beliefs that cannot tolerate such an outcome. The charge of unfalsifiability stands. You are lucky that Will Bouwman hasn't taken any interest in you at all, he would be all over this.

Your argument that conservation laws "cannot be verified" in the context of human decision-making is a cheap dodge. These laws don’t take a vacation just because the discussion shifts to cognitive processes. They apply universally. If you’re suggesting otherwise, the burden of proof is on you to show how and where they break down. And no, hand-waving about "movable scientific paradigms" doesn’t cut it. Paradigms shift when better evidence emerges—not when contrarians decide they don’t like the implications.

I am not offering a new paradigm, I am pointing out that they tend to arrive unbidden. Given that there is no scientific explanation as yet of the full process of human decision making you literally cannot justify a claim that no new paradigm might be required to provide one. If that is the case (and it is of course entirely the case), you do not have evidence that simplified cause and effect paradigm you prefer can hold up to it. Thus I suggest your cart is prior to your horse here.

Now, your repeated accusations of arrogance and fanaticism are laughable given your own condescending tone. You insist I should be "more humble," as if acknowledging observable reality somehow requires genuflecting to philosophical contrarianism. The real arrogance here is your refusal to engage with the fact that determinism isn’t a "belief" or a "faith-based worldview." It’s a conclusion drawn from mountains of empirical evidence. If you think it’s wrong, show me the evidence. Otherwise, spare me the sanctimonious lectures about humility.

This is a philosophy forum, if you don't want your argument to be interrogated in philosophical terms you are in the wrong place and should leave.

Determinism is a belief, it just is, there no point having words like "believe" if not to describe situations like this. If you draw this belief from a mountain of evidence, still it is a belief. You believe your interpretation of the data is correct, and that your belief in determinism is the only reasonable outcome, but you probably already dismissed the obviously true point above that the evidence is in line with other interpretations..

And don’t think I missed your dig about religious scientists.

Please explain why I might be thinking that? Did I write it in some sort of code you had decrypt?

That’s a red herring. I don’t question their competence in their fields; I question whether their religious reasoning holds up to scrutiny. Plenty of scientists compartmentalize their faith and their work, and that’s fine. The issue is when faith-based reasoning conflicts with observable reality, which is precisely why the question Can the religious be trusted? is worth asking. Your deflection doesn’t answer it—it dodges it entirely.

SCroll up the page, look at the question I was answering there. Now stop being silly at me.

So, Flash, unless you have something of substance to offer—something beyond petty nitpicking, vague hand-waving about paradigms, or your amateur-hour psychoanalysis of my "fanaticism"—I suggest you stop wasting both of our time. Show me where determinism fails or admit you’re just throwing stones from the sidelines. Until then, your arguments carry as much weight as those "movable paradigms" you seem so fond of invoking.

Oh I told you why the determinism thing is a pseudo-problem ages ago.

[attofishpi]

* technically Age and Atto and some of the others have psychiatric limitations, but most are doing so.

You really are a chump arn't ya?

You keep insisting we have nothing to do with each other on the forum but keep mentioning me.

Lumping my intellectual capacity with that of Age is some fucking insult.

I should never have made it explicit upon the forum that I decided to visit a shrink in 2017 (for financial reasons only) - ever since, atheist muppets like you continually slap that nonsense into my face.

So.

Where are my 'psychiatric' limitations?

[BigMike]

Flash, your tone and arguments are as tiresome as they are disingenuous. Let’s not dance around the fact that you’re more invested in semantic quibbling and vague accusations than in addressing the core issue. You keep harping on about "falsification" and "humility," but the irony here is staggering. Your entire response reeks of someone who refuses to engage with the argument in good faith while accusing others of arrogance.

You take everything too personally.

You claim determinism is unfalsifiable. That’s nonsense. Determinism is grounded in the laws of physics—cause and effect, conservation of energy, and momentum—all of which have been repeatedly verified through observable phenomena. If anyone could present evidence of causeless events in the macro world, determinism would collapse. That hasn’t happened. You, on the other hand, sit back and throw baseless philosophical darts without offering a shred of substantive evidence to the contrary. If you’re so eager to dismiss determinism as "faith-based," perhaps you could actually engage with the evidence that supports it instead of parroting the same tired lines about inference.

What if it's true of everything except human volition? All of the actual evidence you have is compatible with that, it's your theoretical beliefs that cannot tolerate such an outcome. The charge of unfalsifiability stands. You are lucky that Will Bouwman hasn't taken any interest in you at all, he would be all over this.

Your argument that conservation laws "cannot be verified" in the context of human decision-making is a cheap dodge. These laws don’t take a vacation just because the discussion shifts to cognitive processes. They apply universally. If you’re suggesting otherwise, the burden of proof is on you to show how and where they break down. And no, hand-waving about "movable scientific paradigms" doesn’t cut it. Paradigms shift when better evidence emerges—not when contrarians decide they don’t like the implications.

I am not offering a new paradigm, I am pointing out that they tend to arrive unbidden. Given that there is no scientific explanation as yet of the full process of human decision making you literally cannot justify a claim that no new paradigm might be required to provide one. If that is the case (and it is of course entirely the case), you do not have evidence that simplified cause and effect paradigm you prefer can hold up to it. Thus I suggest your cart is prior to your horse here.

Now, your repeated accusations of arrogance and fanaticism are laughable given your own condescending tone. You insist I should be "more humble," as if acknowledging observable reality somehow requires genuflecting to philosophical contrarianism. The real arrogance here is your refusal to engage with the fact that determinism isn’t a "belief" or a "faith-based worldview." It’s a conclusion drawn from mountains of empirical evidence. If you think it’s wrong, show me the evidence. Otherwise, spare me the sanctimonious lectures about humility.

This is a philosophy forum, if you don't want your argument to be interrogated in philosophical terms you are in the wrong place and should leave.

Determinism is a belief, it just is, there no point having words like "believe" if not to describe situations like this. If you draw this belief from a mountain of evidence, still it is a belief. You believe your interpretation of the data is correct, and that your belief in determinism is the only reasonable outcome, but you probably already dismissed the obviously true point above that the evidence is in line with other interpretations..

And don’t think I missed your dig about religious scientists.

Please explain why I might be thinking that? Did I write it in some sort of code you had decrypt?

That’s a red herring. I don’t question their competence in their fields; I question whether their religious reasoning holds up to scrutiny. Plenty of scientists compartmentalize their faith and their work, and that’s fine. The issue is when faith-based reasoning conflicts with observable reality, which is precisely why the question Can the religious be trusted? is worth asking. Your deflection doesn’t answer it—it dodges it entirely.

SCroll up the page, look at the question I was answering there. Now stop being silly at me.

So, Flash, unless you have something of substance to offer—something beyond petty nitpicking, vague hand-waving about paradigms, or your amateur-hour psychoanalysis of my "fanaticism"—I suggest you stop wasting both of our time. Show me where determinism fails or admit you’re just throwing stones from the sidelines. Until then, your arguments carry as much weight as those "movable paradigms" you seem so fond of invoking.

Oh I told you why the determinism thing is a pseudo-problem ages ago.

Flash, your response drips with condescension while you dodge the central issue yet again. The question is clear: Can the religious be trusted? Yet you’ve turned this into a self-indulgent game of philosophical semantics, pretending that your endless questioning of determinism somehow addresses the point. It doesn’t.

First, your claim that determinism is a "belief" is pure sophistry. Determinism is not a belief; it’s a framework derived from empirical evidence and the unbroken consistency of physical laws. You keep insisting that other interpretations of the evidence are equally valid without offering a single example that holds up to scrutiny. If you think determinism is wrong, show me where causality fails. Don’t just say it could fail—you need to demonstrate it. Until then, the conservation laws and cause-and-effect relationships stand as universal truths, not “interpretations” you can casually dismiss.

And spare me the philosophical posturing about "paradigms arriving unbidden." Paradigms don’t emerge from vague possibilities or contrarian musings; they arise from better evidence. Until you can show that such evidence exists to refute determinism, you’re just speculating without substance. That’s not philosophy—it’s evasion.

Now, let’s get back to the actual topic: trust. When someone’s reasoning is grounded in faith rather than evidence—when they rely on unverifiable claims and refuse to question their dogma—they’re not engaging honestly with reality. That’s why the religious can’t always be trusted in intellectual debates: their worldview is fundamentally at odds with the rigorous demands of evidence-based reasoning. You keep hand-waving about determinism as if it’s a "pseudo-problem," but the real pseudo-problem here is your refusal to confront the contradictions in faith-based reasoning.

If you think religious reasoning deserves to be trusted on par with empirical inquiry, you’re going to have to defend that position with something more than philosophical quibbling. Your repeated attempts to sidestep the question only underscore why it needs to be asked. So, enough with the smug deflections—address the point or concede that you’ve got nothing.

[FlashDangerpants]

* technically Age and Atto and some of the others have psychiatric limitations, but most are doing so.

You really are a chump arn't ya?

You keep insisting we have nothing to do with each other on the forum but keep mentioning me.

Lumping my intellectual capacity with that of Age is some fucking insult.

Is it? In that case, next time you converse with age please do pass him my apologies.

I should never have made it explicit upon the forum that I decided to visit a shrink in 2017 (for financial reasons only) - ever since, atheist muppets like you continually slap that nonsense into my face.

You are as mad as a bag of squirrels, you have an entire religion based on stupid Scrabble nonsense like misspelling real_IY_y.

Nobody needed to know which year you went the shrink's office in to know you are a howling mad madman of the maddest possible type.

So.

Where are my 'psychiatric' limitations?

You are a batshit crazy total and utter lunatic.

[Alexiev]

Alexiev, your position seems to rest on a mix of sophistry and evasion, dressed up as philosophical nuance. Let me cut through the clutter and address your points directly because this tactic of shifting definitions and claiming misunderstood intentions is getting old.

First, your insistence that the Gospels “constitute evidence” misses the mark entirely. Sure, they’re evidence of something—human storytelling, cultural narratives, theological intentions—but they’re not evidence of the supernatural claims they make. This distinction isn’t “ridiculous”; it’s foundational to any rational discussion about what constitutes credible evidence. You seem to conflate claim with proof, which is precisely why discussions about trusting faith-based reasoning often hit a wall.

You appear to be illiterate. Sophistry and evasion are your bailiwicks, not mine. I never claimed that the gospels were "credible evidence". I specifically said that I am not religious. You (not I) are conflating "evidence" with "credible evidence". Not all eye-witness accounts are "credible" -- but they are all evidence. This (once again) is so obvious that it's bizarre and biased that you appear unable to understand. You are arguing against a strawman of your own construction.

Your comparison to courtroom evidence is equally flawed. In a court of law, evidence is scrutinized under strict rules, cross-examined, and weighed against competing testimony and physical facts. It doesn’t get a free pass just because someone presents it. Religious “evidence” typically fails these tests. Testimonies of miracles, for instance, are unverifiable, unrepeatable, and conveniently insulated from falsification. If you want to argue for their evidentiary value, you’ll need to do better than vaguely gesturing at what the Catholic Church or fundamentalists claim.

What are you yammering about? I specifically said that not all evidence is "scientific evidence". Yet you demand that historical accounts must be verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable. Where do you get this stuff? It makes you look like a moron (and don't accuse me of insults when you accuse me of sophistry and evasion -- tit for tat).

Now, your point about replication in science is a blatant misunderstanding of how scientific methodology works. Yes, results are replicated, and those results are what matter. That’s the whole point: reproducibility allows us to separate objective truths from subjective interpretation. This isn’t a “worldview” issue—it’s a standard that applies regardless of personal beliefs. Science is grounded in methods that minimize bias, whereas religious claims thrive in its shadow by avoiding scrutiny altogether.

Your repeated challenge about falsifiability in determinism is more of the same rhetorical misdirection. Determinism is not an isolated “worldview”; it’s a logical conclusion drawn from the consistent application of cause-and-effect relationships observed in physical laws. If you want to falsify determinism, show evidence of causeless events at a macro level. Demonstrate actions or phenomena that violate the conservation laws or occur outside the bounds of cause and effect. Until then, your “curiosity” about its scientific validity feels more like a red herring than a serious critique.

So, let me flip this back to the central question you keep sidestepping: can religious reasoning be trusted when it routinely relies on claims that cannot be falsified, verified, or replicated under any rigorous standard? You claim to reject these beliefs yet still defend their validity as “evidence.” That contradiction undermines your credibility in this discussion. Either you’re arguing for faith-based reasoning, or you’re not. Pick a lane, Alexiev, because dancing around the edges of this conversation only reinforces why faith-based approaches are fundamentally untrustworthy in intellectual debates.

Hmmm. You want me to falsify determinism after I specifically asked you to offer any set of facts that would falsify it (I asked because it is not falsifiable). Neither of us can falsify it. That's why it's not scientific. Reproducing results does not separate "objective truths" from "subjective interpretation". The objective truths are what we observe in the experiment. The "subjective interpretation" is the theoretical inferences we draw from those truths. It is correct that we can use objective truths to falsify subjective interpretations (sometimes). It is not correct that the interpretations are "objective truths". They might be falsified in the future (as, in fact, a great many scientific theories have been).

As far as whether religious reasoning can be trusted, your title question did not address that. Instead, it made the bigoted implication that the religious cannot be trusted. That's why I made the example of a religious person claiming he went to the store (as should have been obvious). It so happens that I don't trust many (most) religious claims. That's why I don't believe them (obviously). What I object to is my fellow atheists and agnostics making idiotic statements (like the Gospels do not constitute historical evidence). It makes atheism look like stupidity.

[FlashDangerpants]

Flash, your response drips with condescension while you dodge the central issue yet again. The question is clear: Can the religious be trusted? Yet you’ve turned this into a self-indulgent game of philosophical semantics, pretending that your endless questioning of determinism somehow addresses the point. It doesn’t.

I never told you I was answering your question directly, show me where I did if you can. I put an aside into play: that you are asking such questions out of fanatical zeal. It's kind of case proven by now isn't it?

First, your claim that determinism is a "belief" is pure sophistry. Determinism is not a belief; it’s a framework derived from empirical evidence and the unbroken consistency of physical laws. You keep insisting that other interpretations of the evidence are equally valid without offering a single example that holds up to scrutiny. If you think determinism is wrong, show me where causality fails. Don’t just say it could fail—you need to demonstrate it. Until then, the conservation laws and cause-and-effect relationships stand as universal truths, not “interpretations” you can casually dismiss.

That's a bit silly. You either hold the belief in determinism or you don't hold the belief. Trivial prestidigitations won't change that. Call it a framework if you like, you believe the "framework" is true, so you hold the belief.

You need to grasp the difference in type between a statement that X is not proven and a statement that X is false. My own position on determinism is that it's neither here nor there, much like arguing over whether to take the top off a boiled egg with a spoon or a knife. This I have already explained, so why you are demanding I should take a side on the issue that I already decaled a nothing burger is beyond me.

And spare me the philosophical posturing about "paradigms arriving unbidden." Paradigms don’t emerge from vague possibilities or contrarian musings; they arise from better evidence. Until you can show that such evidence exists to refute determinism, you’re just speculating without substance. That’s not philosophy—it’s evasion.

My point was only that they arrive and that you have no reason not to expect a new one to arrive some time. I don't need more point than that.

You don't get to choose what I am arguing on behalf of. My position is not that determinism is false, it is that determinism is undecidable and that you therefore lack grounds to accuse those who oppose you of being evidently mistaken. I am sorry if you can't cope with that, but it is not a me problem.

Now, let’s get back to the actual topic: trust. When someone’s reasoning is grounded in faith rather than evidence—when they rely on unverifiable claims and refuse to question their dogma—they’re not engaging honestly with reality. That’s why the religious can’t always be trusted in intellectual debates: their worldview is fundamentally at odds with the rigorous demands of evidence-based reasoning. You keep hand-waving about determinism as if it’s a "pseudo-problem," but the real pseudo-problem here is your refusal to confront the contradictions in faith-based reasoning.

Buddy, you just gotta buy a mirror. There are leaps of faith in your argument and you are blind to them.

If you think religious reasoning deserves to be trusted on par with empirical inquiry, you’re going to have to defend that position with something more than philosophical quibbling. Your repeated attempts to sidestep the question only underscore why it needs to be asked. So, enough with the smug deflections—address the point or concede that you’ve got nothing.

I never said that so we can rest assured I won't be defending that proposition thank you.

[attofishpi]

Where are my 'psychiatric' limitations?

You are a batshit crazy total and utter lunatic.

Spoken like a true atheist (no idea)

Well, this "lunatic" had $4500 deposited into his bank account when GOD had forced me out of work, and i simply asked for dosh.

Transaction title with my initials: BT Portfolio

The fact IS that I have a better understanding about the TRUE nature of REAL IT Y than anyone on the forum, that there is an intelligence behind its construct, operating in real-time, operate from below the Planck scale.

Random coin_cidences of the English language I suppose? There's NO LOG_IC to any of this

HELL_O

Y_O_U (Why Owe You?)


PAY ATTENTION TO THE TITLES OF THE ART PIECES MIKE


Vowels of the Sage - the alphabet balances perfectly




Tree of Knowledge (Of Good and Evil)




Mount Sinai (Red Sea to scale) SIN - A.I. (yes GOD operates like an extremely powerful AI)




Natal (South America to scale)...a "chill up your spine"




Ancasta (United Kingdom & Ireland to scale)



Wise PUPILS of the Light



...now the thing is, I don't give a flying fuck that you atheists are too dumb to put rational gear into your head to see the above as being unlikely to be NATURAL in the present day. I do enjoy my knowledge of GOD and some of the benefits of it, but insisting i am indeed of some mental imbalance *apart from when I get rather drunk...is really fucking insulting.

PS: BigMike -- there's a little bit of that evidence you insist on.

[FlashDangerpants]

Ancasta (United Kingdom & Ireland to scale)

LoL

That is the worst piece of shit I have ever seen. You are absolutely the maddest of hatters if you think it demonstrates anything except lack of talent.

Why has the baby got a tattoo? What is the big blue cloud around the baby's head and what the absolute fuck is happening to that woman's hands, hair, and feet?

[attofishpi]

Ancasta (United Kingdom & Ireland to scale)

LoL

That is the worst piece of shit I have ever seen. You are absolutely the maddest of hatters if you think it demonstrates anything except lack of talent.

Why has the baby got a tattoo?

Well that pretty much proves the level of depth you have. The anchor tattoo indicates the child of "I_RE_LAND" sailing off as the people of the UK did, and spread the LAN_GAUGE - GOD language, embedded with deep logic, phonetic/homophones beyond natural language etymology.

[BigMike]

Alexiev, your position seems to rest on a mix of sophistry and evasion, dressed up as philosophical nuance. Let me cut through the clutter and address your points directly because this tactic of shifting definitions and claiming misunderstood intentions is getting old.

First, your insistence that the Gospels “constitute evidence” misses the mark entirely. Sure, they’re evidence of something—human storytelling, cultural narratives, theological intentions—but they’re not evidence of the supernatural claims they make. This distinction isn’t “ridiculous”; it’s foundational to any rational discussion about what constitutes credible evidence. You seem to conflate claim with proof, which is precisely why discussions about trusting faith-based reasoning often hit a wall.

You appear to be illiterate. Sophistry and evasion are your bailiwicks, not mine. I never claimed that the gospels were "credible evidence". I specifically said that I am not religious. You (not I) are conflating "evidence" with "credible evidence". Not all eye-witness accounts are "credible" -- but they are all evidence. This (once again) is so obvious that it's bizarre and biased that you appear unable to understand. You are arguing against a strawman of your own construction.

Your comparison to courtroom evidence is equally flawed. In a court of law, evidence is scrutinized under strict rules, cross-examined, and weighed against competing testimony and physical facts. It doesn’t get a free pass just because someone presents it. Religious “evidence” typically fails these tests. Testimonies of miracles, for instance, are unverifiable, unrepeatable, and conveniently insulated from falsification. If you want to argue for their evidentiary value, you’ll need to do better than vaguely gesturing at what the Catholic Church or fundamentalists claim.

What are you yammering about? I specifically said that not all evidence is "scientific evidence". Yet you demand that historical accounts must be verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable. Where do you get this stuff? It makes you look like a moron (and don't accuse me of insults when you accuse me of sophistry and evasion -- tit for tat).

Now, your point about replication in science is a blatant misunderstanding of how scientific methodology works. Yes, results are replicated, and those results are what matter. That’s the whole point: reproducibility allows us to separate objective truths from subjective interpretation. This isn’t a “worldview” issue—it’s a standard that applies regardless of personal beliefs. Science is grounded in methods that minimize bias, whereas religious claims thrive in its shadow by avoiding scrutiny altogether.

Your repeated challenge about falsifiability in determinism is more of the same rhetorical misdirection. Determinism is not an isolated “worldview”; it’s a logical conclusion drawn from the consistent application of cause-and-effect relationships observed in physical laws. If you want to falsify determinism, show evidence of causeless events at a macro level. Demonstrate actions or phenomena that violate the conservation laws or occur outside the bounds of cause and effect. Until then, your “curiosity” about its scientific validity feels more like a red herring than a serious critique.

So, let me flip this back to the central question you keep sidestepping: can religious reasoning be trusted when it routinely relies on claims that cannot be falsified, verified, or replicated under any rigorous standard? You claim to reject these beliefs yet still defend their validity as “evidence.” That contradiction undermines your credibility in this discussion. Either you’re arguing for faith-based reasoning, or you’re not. Pick a lane, Alexiev, because dancing around the edges of this conversation only reinforces why faith-based approaches are fundamentally untrustworthy in intellectual debates.

Hmmm. You want me to falsify determinism after I specifically asked you to offer any set of facts that would falsify it (I asked because it is not falsifiable). Neither of us can falsify it. That's why it's not scientific. Reproducing results does not separate "objective truths" from "subjective interpretation". The objective truths are what we observe in the experiment. The "subjective interpretation" is the theoretical inferences we draw from those truths. It is correct that we can use objective truths to falsify subjective interpretations (sometimes). It is not correct that the interpretations are "objective truths". They might be falsified in the future (as, in fact, a great many scientific theories have been).

As far as whether religious reasoning can be trusted, your title question did not address that. Instead, it made the bigoted implication that the religious cannot be trusted. That's why I made the example of a religious person claiming he went to the store (as should have been obvious). It so happens that I don't trust many (most) religious claims. That's why I don't believe them (obviously). What I object to is my fellow atheists and agnostics making idiotic statements (like the Gospels do not constitute historical evidence). It makes atheism look like stupidity.

Alexiev, let’s dispense with the deflections and distractions. You accuse me of conflating “evidence” with “credible evidence” while pretending that’s some profound distinction. It’s not. Evidence, to be meaningful in any rational discussion, must meet a standard of credibility. Saying the Gospels are “evidence” is as useful as saying any claim, no matter how absurd, constitutes evidence. Without credibility or verification, it’s noise, not proof. Your insistence on this pedantic distinction only reinforces why faith-based reasoning so often fails intellectual scrutiny.

You then mischaracterize my position on historical accounts. I never demanded that all historical evidence be subject to the same scrutiny as scientific evidence. What I said is that extraordinary claims—like miracles—require extraordinary evidence, which religious accounts universally fail to provide. Your attempt to conflate religious storytelling with verifiable history doesn’t hold up. The claim that the Gospels are “historical evidence” of resurrection is no more compelling than saying The Iliad is evidence that the gods fought on the plains of Troy.

As for determinism, your claim that it’s unfalsifiable is flat-out wrong. Determinism is grounded in observable cause-and-effect relationships and the conservation laws of physics. If someone could demonstrate causeless macro events—violations of these principles—it would falsify determinism. That hasn’t happened. What you’re actually frustrated with is that determinism doesn’t accommodate your vague philosophical what-ifs. That’s not a failure of determinism; it’s a failure of your argument.

Now let’s get back to the central question, which you keep evading: Can the religious be trusted? You call the question “bigoted,” but that’s another deflection. The issue isn’t whether a religious person can be trusted to tell you they went to the store. It’s whether their reasoning, built on unverifiable claims, can be trusted when it comes to understanding reality or engaging in intellectual debate. Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence. If someone prioritizes faith over evidence, their reasoning is compromised. That’s not bigotry; it’s a rational critique.

If you agree that you don’t trust many religious claims, then you’ve answered the question yourself. The problem is you don’t want to admit that faith-based reasoning inherently lacks the reliability required for intellectual integrity. Instead, you pivot to pedantic arguments about what constitutes evidence or falsifiability. If you’re genuinely interested in addressing the question, stop throwing up smokescreens and engage with it directly. Otherwise, your protests do little more than validate the very skepticism you claim to find objectionable.

[BigMike]

Flash, your response drips with condescension while you dodge the central issue yet again. The question is clear: Can the religious be trusted? Yet you’ve turned this into a self-indulgent game of philosophical semantics, pretending that your endless questioning of determinism somehow addresses the point. It doesn’t.

I never told you I was answering your question directly, show me where I did if you can. I put an aside into play: that you are asking such questions out of fanatical zeal. It's kind of case proven by now isn't it?

First, your claim that determinism is a "belief" is pure sophistry. Determinism is not a belief; it’s a framework derived from empirical evidence and the unbroken consistency of physical laws. You keep insisting that other interpretations of the evidence are equally valid without offering a single example that holds up to scrutiny. If you think determinism is wrong, show me where causality fails. Don’t just say it could fail—you need to demonstrate it. Until then, the conservation laws and cause-and-effect relationships stand as universal truths, not “interpretations” you can casually dismiss.

That's a bit silly. You either hold the belief in determinism or you don't hold the belief. Trivial prestidigitations won't change that. Call it a framework if you like, you believe the "framework" is true, so you hold the belief.

You need to grasp the difference in type between a statement that X is not proven and a statement that X is false. My own position on determinism is that it's neither here nor there, much like arguing over whether to take the top off a boiled egg with a spoon or a knife. This I have already explained, so why you are demanding I should take a side on the issue that I already decaled a nothing burger is beyond me.

And spare me the philosophical posturing about "paradigms arriving unbidden." Paradigms don’t emerge from vague possibilities or contrarian musings; they arise from better evidence. Until you can show that such evidence exists to refute determinism, you’re just speculating without substance. That’s not philosophy—it’s evasion.

My point was only that they arrive and that you have no reason not to expect a new one to arrive some time. I don't need more point than that.

You don't get to choose what I am arguing on behalf of. My position is not that determinism is false, it is that determinism is undecidable and that you therefore lack grounds to accuse those who oppose you of being evidently mistaken. I am sorry if you can't cope with that, but it is not a me problem.

Now, let’s get back to the actual topic: trust. When someone’s reasoning is grounded in faith rather than evidence—when they rely on unverifiable claims and refuse to question their dogma—they’re not engaging honestly with reality. That’s why the religious can’t always be trusted in intellectual debates: their worldview is fundamentally at odds with the rigorous demands of evidence-based reasoning. You keep hand-waving about determinism as if it’s a "pseudo-problem," but the real pseudo-problem here is your refusal to confront the contradictions in faith-based reasoning.

Buddy, you just gotta buy a mirror. There are leaps of faith in your argument and you are blind to them.

If you think religious reasoning deserves to be trusted on par with empirical inquiry, you’re going to have to defend that position with something more than philosophical quibbling. Your repeated attempts to sidestep the question only underscore why it needs to be asked. So, enough with the smug deflections—address the point or concede that you’ve got nothing.

I never said that so we can rest assured I won't be defending that proposition thank you.

Flash, your entire response is an exercise in hand-waving and smug deflection, and it's exhausting. You’ve openly admitted that you’re not addressing the central question—Can the religious be trusted?—so why are you even here, apart from stroking your own contrarian ego? This isn’t about your tedious "aside" on my supposed fanaticism; it’s about the inherent reliability of reasoning grounded in faith versus evidence. Stick to the point or move along.

You keep trying to reduce determinism to a “belief,” as though slapping a simplistic label on it wins you the argument. Determinism isn’t a "belief" in the same way that faith in the supernatural is—it’s a conclusion grounded in observable, consistent evidence. You’re right about one thing: I hold it to be true, because the evidence supports it and no credible alternative has been presented. Meanwhile, you sit on the sidelines, smugly claiming it’s “undecidable” without bothering to engage with the mountain of evidence that supports it. If you think determinism is false, say so and back it up. If you don’t, stop pretending your intellectual indifference is a valid critique.

Your "paradigms arrive unbidden" argument is a cop-out. Yes, science evolves, and better paradigms emerge when evidence demands it. But the idea that we should just sit around waiting for some hypothetical paradigm to materialize so we can question determinism is absurd. It’s not philosophy—it’s a lazy excuse to avoid engaging with the current framework. Until there’s evidence to the contrary, determinism holds, and hand-waving about what "might" happen doesn’t change that.

As for trust, let me spell it out for you one more time: faith-based reasoning is inherently untrustworthy because it starts with conclusions and works backward, prioritizing belief over evidence. That’s not a leap of faith on my part—it’s a demonstrable pattern. If you think otherwise, provide an example where faith has outperformed evidence in reliably explaining reality. I’ll wait.

Finally, your repeated insistence that I "look in a mirror" is the ultimate irony. You accuse me of blind faith while refusing to confront your own avoidance of the actual question. If you’re not defending the trustworthiness of religious reasoning, and you’re not opposing determinism, then what exactly are you contributing here, other than empty contrarianism? If you have a substantive response to the actual topic, let’s hear it. Otherwise, save the pseudo-philosophical grandstanding for someone who finds it impressive. I don’t.

[accelafine]

Ancasta (United Kingdom & Ireland to scale)

LoL

That is the worst piece of shit I have ever seen. You are absolutely the maddest of hatters if you think it demonstrates anything except lack of talent.

Why has the baby got a tattoo? What is the big blue cloud around the baby's head and what the absolute fuck is happening to that woman's hands, hair, and feet?

Wokie showing his 'be kind' ness again I think his art is pretty good. It's obviously not supposed to be realism.

[FlashDangerpants]

Flash, your entire response is an exercise in hand-waving and smug deflection, and it's exhausting. You’ve openly admitted that you’re not addressing the central question—Can the religious be trusted?—so why are you even here, apart from stroking your own contrarian ego? This isn’t about your tedious "aside" on my supposed fanaticism; it’s about the inherent reliability of reasoning grounded in faith versus evidence. Stick to the point or move along.

This is the internet, conversations started with one question typically spawn many others. The matter I mentioned arose naturally from your own bombastic oversold OP. Your own reasoning is grounded on a certain sort of faith, everyone except you seems to see that.

You keep trying to reduce determinism to a “belief,” as though slapping a simplistic label on it wins you the argument. Determinism isn’t a "belief" in the same way that faith in the supernatural is—it’s a conclusion grounded in observable, consistent evidence. You’re right about one thing: I hold it to be true, because the evidence supports it and no credible alternative has been presented. Meanwhile, you sit on the sidelines, smugly claiming it’s “undecidable” without bothering to engage with the mountain of evidence that supports it. If you think determinism is false, say so and back it up. If you don’t, stop pretending your intellectual indifference is a valid critique.

You seem to be challenged in the comprehension department. I am not sneakily changing this thing into a belief in an underhanded effort to win an argument, it quite obviously is one and you are making yourself look quite mad by fighting that. You should perhaps take a step back and think for a moment because you are making a common mistake of just picking every worthless hill to die on over and over again.

You don't need to argue about whether your belief in determinism is a belief or not - that's a given, so it is a bad move - you need to argue that it is a well enough founded belief that everyone who disputes it must be suffering the sort of cognitive dissonance that you have been ascribing to your foes willy and nilly. Wasting your effort foolishly denying that it is even a belief suggests that you are out of your depth.

I don't know why you cannot cope with this, it's fairly simple. Determinism and free-will are not important, I don't take a side because it is a nothing question. Constantly challenging me to take a side won't make me suddenly think one of the sides is good, the problem is caused by overinterpretation on both ends of the debate and the matter is not just undecidable (but you would need at least two universes to decide the issue...), but arguably meaningless and entirely unimportant either way.

Your "paradigms arrive unbidden" argument is a cop-out. Yes, science evolves, and better paradigms emerge when evidence demands it. But the idea that we should just sit around waiting for some hypothetical paradigm to materialize so we can question determinism is absurd. It’s not philosophy—it’s a lazy excuse to avoid engaging with the current framework. Until there’s evidence to the contrary, determinism holds, and hand-waving about what "might" happen doesn’t change that.

Again, I can't explain how you are failing to grasp this, but you misrepresent me. Stop adding layers to my arguments, you aren't talented enough to get it right. As I wrote already: My point was only that they arrive and that you have no reason not to expect a new one to arrive some time. I don't need more point than that.

You can indeed argue without complaint from me that determinism is compatible with all available observational evidence and fits with the best available scientific theories. The question of best would arise with others, but I wouldn't make a fuss over it because that argument would be used for what it can do - namely making a case for why you happen to believe in determinism. But it doesn't progress to what you are not able to do - show that everyone who disputers it must be mistaken.

To have an argument strong enough such that everyone who disagrees is known to be categorically mistaken would require stronger reasoning and evidence than you have access to. You can whine that this is "philosophical quibbling" if you want, but it won't fix your faulty argument.

As for trust, let me spell it out for you one more time: faith-based reasoning is inherently untrustworthy because it starts with conclusions and works backward, prioritizing belief over evidence. That’s not a leap of faith on my part—it’s a demonstrable pattern. If you think otherwise, provide an example where faith has outperformed evidence in reliably explaining reality. I’ll wait.

Sure, I can assent to that.

Finally, your repeated insistence that I "look in a mirror" is the ultimate irony. You accuse me of blind faith while refusing to confront your own avoidance of the actual question. If you’re not defending the trustworthiness of religious reasoning, and you’re not opposing determinism, then what exactly are you contributing here, other than empty contrarianism? If you have a substantive response to the actual topic, let’s hear it. Otherwise, save the pseudo-philosophical grandstanding for someone who finds it impressive. I don’t.

I do oppose determinism, it's a pseudo-problem. But just so we are clear, I would oppose what you have written on this site even if I were a determinist for much the same reason as Alexiev wrote about atheist horsemen...

What I object to is my fellow atheists and agnostics making idiotic statements (like the Gospels do not constitute historical evidence). It makes atheism look like stupidity.

In your case, your zealotry in pursuit of your tyrannical belief exceeds reason, and even if I sided with your starting point I would reject your excesses.

[FlashDangerpants]

Ancasta (United Kingdom & Ireland to scale)

LoL

That is the worst piece of shit I have ever seen. You are absolutely the maddest of hatters if you think it demonstrates anything except lack of talent.

Why has the baby got a tattoo?

Well that pretty much proves the level of depth you have. The anchor tattoo indicates the child of "I_RE_LAND" sailing off as the people of the UK did, and spread the LAN_GAUGE - GOD language, embedded with deep logic, phonetic/homophones beyond natural language etymology.

Completely mad

[promethean75]

Fishpie, are you totally de_ranged?