|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Choosing a faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Phat writes: Confirmation bias exists in atheists as well as believers. That's why atheists look for objective evidence which is much more immune to confirmation bias. Atheists often do their best to negate their own inherent biases. Believers seem to wallow in those biases.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Phat writes: The main difference is that you are burning down the very house you live in due to your politics. You seek to vanquish the entire support system that made America great and that allowed you and I to go to school and get the education we needed. There are times I stop to consider that I somehow transported myself to this universe from some parallel universe with a different history. Phat, are you at all aware of US history? I mean, AT ALL AWARE??? A college education used to be affordable to everyone in the US. Why? Government subsidies, what conservatives now call socialism. In fact, a state run school is socialism. Why are tuitions at state schools unaffordable to the majority of US citizens today? Conservatives have eroded support of schools. How are you not aware of this?
Perhaps another difference between us is that I feel entitled to some privilege because my Dad worked hard to pave the way. Children of educated elitists often appeal to Uncle Sam to help them. And make no mistake. You are a proudly educated elitist. (That's not an insult, by the way)
Did you father expect Medicare and Social Security? I bet he did. Do regular working folk expect the government to build schools for their kids? Yep, they sure do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Phat writes: Were there any evidence at all, it would not come from finding God (or a god.) It would come from observation and study of the believers themselves. If a given group of people claim that their belief in and of itself should be taken seriously, it would be a good idea to find out precisely what makes these people tick and why (in ancient times and in some radical sects) they willingly give up their lives to make a point. That does seem to be a fundamental part of the human psyche. Many hills have been built by humanity, and there are always those who are willing to die on them.
On another basic level, I feel as if though I already have given myself up to the God of my belief, but ringo astutely points out that all I have really done is give up my will to a God of my own imagination. Which presupposes that he has figured out what a believer must do even though he himself rejected belief! Of course he gets it from the book. You would say the same of people who have given their life in the name of religions you don't belong to.
Though I was told (in past conversations) to throw God away or throw Jesus away, I am more likely to throw the book away( figuratively of course) since I believe that the author of the Book lives today and is quite capable of conveying His message directly. I will admit that I sometimes roll my eyes when people say they have a "personal relationship with Jesus". If that was the case they wouldn't have to read his biography.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Phat writes: If we follow your train of logic, however, and have no Gods, we will end up with idols by default. We are not God. Reminds me of how humans write a book which people then call the words of God and worship the book like an idol.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Phat writes: Its like adopting a dysfunctional kid into the family whose mouth needs to be fed yet whose brain does not wrap itself around the idea that he too has to pay his way in that house. Where is that found in the Bible?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
GDR writes: But you restrict yourself to the physical world. You ignore the question about why and even how the physical world exists. You look at all the various processes and conclude that these processes, one after another, just happened out of the blue by chance. All of the natural processes that you claim as evidence lead you to your naturalistic conclusions and disregard any idea that these processes are there as a result of external intelligence. If a deity were controlling the natural world why couldn't we use observations of the natural world to evidence the actions of this deity? We conclude that natural processes happen out of the blue by chance because that is how they behave. We don't assume it. We conclude chance because of the evidence. Everything we see is consistent with probabilities we would expect from natural processes.
GDR writes: I actually start with the belief in a theistic deity because that makes a great deal more sense to me that does a wholly materialistic world. If you started with the belief in magical leprechauns you would probable conclude that magical leprechauns make the most sense. That's what starting with a belief leads to, that belief. The fact that you have to start with that belief instead of following the evidence to that belief says a lot.
If I can be shown evidence that my beliefs are without foundation then I'll change mv views. You keep saying that processes are evidence of the non-existence of a deity. That is like saying that an automobile assembly line is the sole cause of the cars they produce. Just like saying that the assembly just occurred is the same thing as you saying that the processes responsible for life just occurred, and that seems to make sense to you. What supernatural forces do you need to invoke in order to explain the operation of an assembly line? From where I sit, you only need naturalistic processes which includes what humans do. What if we look at mutations, in real time? What would you expect to see with respect to the distribution of new mutations in humans if there was an intelligent being involved as compared to just chance? There are new mutations that cause horrific diseases in humans, so how does that square with intelligence? We also have a probability distribution that we would expect from natural processes that happen by chance where we should get a predictable number of transition and transversion mutations. Through chance, we would expect harmful, neutral, and beneficial mutations to all occur. How would it be different with a deity involved?
If the supernatural exists then how do you know that it didn't happen? The burden of proof lies with those who claim the supernatural is involved. At a minimum, you would need to deal with the law of parsimony. If the evidence is consistent with natural processes then there is no reason to invoke the supernatural.
I have seen zero evidence that shows that my conclusions are wrong. What evidence would show your conclusions to be wrong? Is there any evidence that could change your mind? For example, what observations in the realm of new mutations would change your mind?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Phat writes: We could, if we took into account that the experiment not only involved observation of the natural world but of our own communion with it and other people. The only "evidence" we would find would be our own reactions to our observations, our own feelings and thoughts on the data, and at the end of the day our choice in accepting or rejecting said Deity. Why would that be the only evidence? Your proposed evidence is indistinguishable from people believing in a non-existent deity.
In short, there will never be objective evidence of a Deity until and unless such a Deity chose to reveal it to us individually or collectively. Again, that is indistinguishable from a universe where no such deity exists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Phat writes: Just because you cant establish evidence or distinguish a character from a myth doesn't change human behavior. Human behavior does include believing in things that are false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Phat writes: Absence of evidence does not define the conclusion, especially if the story traveled worldwide and has so many adherents today. You may wish it were a myth, however. The Latter Day Saints have spread their beliefs world wide and they are one of the fastest growing religions. Does that mean the events in the Book of Mormon are no longer myths?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Phat writes: They have quite a ways to go to match Christianity or Islam. Have they taught you about the Argument from Popularity fallacy in the class you are taking?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
GDR writes: You keep insisting on physical evidence for something that isn't physical. If you are claiming that a process has effects on the physical world then it is physical.
I am simply searching for truth and common sense alone tells me that a single cell, let alone sentient life with all that it entails is not through who knows how many separate processes is going to arise from a lifeless planet. All you can do is point to the processes which we do have evidence for. Since when is magic the option that makes the most sense?
The point is that there isn't physical evidence that we can examine or test for. Then the processes you are pushing have no effect on the physical world.
I do say thought that it is the common sense conclusion as to the origin of the processes that has resulted in sentient life. For some people, it is common sense that the Earth is flat. There's a reason why an appeal to common sense is considered a logical fallacy.
Yes we understand the natural explanation of the processes that show that Thor wasn't necessary, but it doesn't tell us whether or not Thor was ultimately responsible for the processes so that they could happen naturally. What Thor? Why even ask if about what Thor does or doesn't do to begin with?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Stile writes: I like this line of thinking as well. Oh - if only I could write a short post with all the things I wanted to say. Then, I'd win every argument! Seriously, though - this line of reasoning is incredibly damning to anyone thinking "the supernatural exists in places we cannot find." To put it another way, if someone declared that gravity was supernatural that wouldn't make all of the physical evidence for gravity go away. If something affects the physical then there should be physical evidence of it. Period. Not that hard to figure out. If it has no affect on the physical, then why bring it up in relation to the physical? It would seem that the primary reason to call something supernatural is to invent an excuse for not having evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
GDR writes: I see God as working in the physical in a similar manner as all of the other memes in our lives by impacting the hearts and minds of people everywhere, thereby impacting the world without leaving any foot prints. So God is just an idea invented by humans and passed on culturally?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
GDR writes: "How we empathize with others: A neurobiological perspective."It starts out with the word "How". My understanding of biology borders on nil, so I'll accept that paper as correct. However, what the paper doesn't and can't answer, is why those processes exist in the first place, nor can it tell whether or not there is an external non-material influence, (amongst many others), on the thoughts that are formed. Empathy is a product of our brains. Brains are a product of embryonic and postnatal development. Embryonic and postnatal development are a product of DNA. DNA is a product of common ancestry and evolution. The fingerprints of these mechanisms are all over our genome. I have no beef with people who believe through faith that God has some imperceptible or ephemeral influence on nature. Religious belief is part of the human condition, and far be it from me to tell others what religious beliefs they should hold. Where I draw the line is when religious beliefs try to masquerade as reason and logic. This is what appears to be happening here. Is there any situation where we can rule out supernatural influence? Isn't the supernatural unfalsifiable, by its very nature? Shifting the burden of proof is not a valid way of approaching this problem, IMHO. If you want to push Dualism into the realm of reason then you need to supply some positive evidence for the supernatural. It isn't enough to claim that there isn't any evidence against the unfalsifiable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
GDR writes: How do you know that? How do you know what influences an individuals thought, let alone their morality. Do you hold the same or all of nature? How do you know what influences weather, or bacterial infections? How do you know what influences evidence at crime scenes? Could the Holy Spirit change DNA and fingerprints at crime scenes? If so, can we just believe any person is guilty, or not guilty?
Yes, co-operation can be very beneficial which is hardly the same thing as altruism. Altruism requires the one who is altruistic to lose personal benefits for the good of others with no expectation of any personal benefit. That type of altruism is seen in many eusocial insects, like bees and ants. In the same way, altruism promotes the continuation of the species, and more immediately of closely related individuals. Given that humans evolved in a more small tribal structure it makes sense that we would feel altruism because that would have had a high chance of pushing our genes forward, even if they are genes found in those related to us. This evolved sense of altruism can then extend to many people.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024