Choosing a faith

Test it.There is an entire philosophy dedicated to doing just that. It is called science.But, you knew that already.

Science determines reality? Altar Boy, are you really this dense? Way too many crackers.The reality is there sitting in the dark doing what reality does. Science shines a light on it.That you cannot perceive the difference is part of your mental religious disconnect.Science does not determine reality. Science reveals it.

You forget that a tautology is always true.And as AZPaul points out (Message 2297), that first clause is perhaps the most extremely stupid bullshit you've ever excreted.

This seems to make some sort of sense to you but to me it makes none at all. Earlier you said this:

quote:

---

I'm contending that this so called still small voice of God is there influencing us to do the right and loving thing

---

But when I asked you this:

quote:

---

Are you trying to tell us that this god of yours is directly causing our thoughts and motivations minute by minute?

---

You said “No”.He influences us directly, but he doesn't influence us directly. I don't know how you think this is an answer.You have also left out the other half of the story told to children about godly whispering. The devil whispers in the other ear doesn't he? He tempts us with his 'rough, loud voice' to do the bad things. Do you believe in this too?Surely you know this is all nonsense? We have a reasonable understanding of why people (and many animals) do both 'good' and 'bad' things. There is no mechanism for a 'still, small voice', it's simply a metaphor for an evolved trait that has helped us survive. The necessity for all life to kill and eat other life in order to survive is the source of our selfishness. The two are kept in balance by our institutions - that's why civilisation progresses as we improve our institutions and collapses when they fail.Your 'still small voice' is born of ignorance and of primitive belief systems - it's an anachronism.

That's not what I meant. I'll reword it ...If the latter (reality) is defined by the former (science), they're the same thing and you have a tautology.How do you define reality? Let me guess ... by whatever science can perceive?

Have you not noticed that I'm a master of logic and philosophy? Observe my avatar. Does it look like Dredge is excreting "extremely stupid bullshit"? No, it does not.

It isn't.'defined by' is no better than 'determined by'. You went to school in the south, didn't you? Home schooled I would guess.Try a different word like explains or exposes. Better yet, leave it at reveals.Science doesn't impose structure on reality, like the words make, define or determine imply. Science can only show reality, expose it, reveal its nature, content and operation.If you go back to school to learn actual words and their meanings then do stop off in paleontology and see those fossils you say aren't there. Now you're getting there. Science is our tool, our technique, for revealing the reality of this universe. You shouldn't be at all surprised when it reveals results. That's it's job.

Doch! Bullshit, putrid scum ... what's the difference?You constantly spew a steady stream of crap/crud! About 2000 gallons per minute (upwards of 8800 gal/min).That's a helluva lot of BS you spew non-stop!--------------------------- Emperor Joseph II: I mean, just look at it!

I think you're stuck in the issue of "knowing things 100%" - this is a problem with philosophers who do not understand how reality works.
People being affected by this problem seem to think that if "any doubt at all" exists - then we "don't know what's going on" to a level that is unreasonable considering how much we do know about "what's going on" according to the evidence we do have.The thing is - we don't know anything at all 100%.
We don't know gravity 100%.
We don't know our own parents 100%.
We don't know our own thoughts 100%.
We don't even know if we exist at all 100%.Nothing. At. All.Of course, none of this stops us from learning what we can, doing what we can based upon that knowledge, and growing our knowledge in areas where it's lacking.We know quite a bit about how gravity works, enough to do some pretty amazing stuffs - even if it's not 100%
We know quite a bit about our own parents, enough to have some pretty amazing experiences - even if it's not 100%
We know quite a bit about our own thoughts, enough to live some pretty amazing lives - even if it's not 100%
We know quite a bit about our own existence, enough to flourish into a few billion of us all over the planet - even if it's not 100% And you're wrong.
I mean - you can believe or contend or whatever else you'd like to call it. It's equivalent to contending that the 'best explanation' for gravity is tiny angels pushing everything together.Can't prove it wrong - but all the evidence we have shows us that it's wrong. It's not required, and there are natural-explanations that do explain why it is that way much, much better. Tiny angels explain nothing. "External non-material influences" explain nothing. This is also wrong.This is like saying we can only surmise why gravity acts the way it does.True: We do not know 100% everything about gravity.
Also True: We have massive amount of evidence that show us why gravity acts the way it does and we can explain almost all of it.
Most likely true explanation: Gravity is a natural phenomenon that occurs naturally.
We have a ton of evidence on how gravity works and saying we can only surmise about why it's that way is a ridiculous falsehood and only put forward by the ignorant attempting to protect their own fears on identifying that reality may be different from their beliefs - ie "Flat Earthers"True: We do not know 100% everything about the evolution of humans.
Also True: We have massive amount of evidence that show us why humans evolved the way we did (morality and social integration included) and we can explain almost all of it.
Most likely true explanation: Human evolution is a natural phenomenon that occurs naturally.
We have a ton of evidence on how human evolution works and saying we can only surmise about why it's that way is a ridiculous falsehood and only put forward by the ignorant attempting to protect their own fears on identifying that reality may be different from their beliefs - ie "Anyone saying that morality could not have evolved"

By taking the information we have, testing it against reality, and growing our confidence in results that are always repeated.
This allows reality to define itself, rather than letting our ideas attempt to define reality.It's not a secret - it's our best known way to identify reality.
It kinda sucks - because you never get to know when you're done "getting closer to the truth" (there's no answer book to reality to just look up.)
But, it's waaaaaaaaaaaaay better than any other known method like "looking at a religious book" or "see what others seem to think" - which are known to almost always give wrong answers about reality.Getting closer to the truth about reality is waaaaaaaaaaaaay better then simply being wrong.

How have I misrepresented evolution? Darwin agreed that "survival of the fittest" accurately represented the evolutionary process.Yes it is my belief that that there is an outside influence that allows us to rise above raw evolutionary forces. Of course I might be wrong. Nonsense. I believe that my views represent, at least roughly, the truth. Just as you do.

I don't know how to answer this. When you observe someone returning some money that was dropped and it influences you to do the same thing in a similar occurrence later then would you call that influence direct or not?​Frankly I don't believe individual personality named satan that leads us to do evil. I agree with Pogo when he says, as best as I can remember it, "that we have seen the enemy and it is us".
​

quote:

---

How have I misrepresented evolution? Darwin agreed that "survival of the fittest" accurately represented the evolutionary process.

---

By insisting that “survival of the fittest” must be a raw competition of all against all with no room for cooperation or altruism. Even when talking about the arguments for the latter. And you’ve been doing it for over a decade ignoring all correctionsThere is no need for an outside influence. Evolution itself will do what’s required.

quote:

---

Nonsense. I believe that my views represent, at least roughly, the truth. Just as you do.

---

I make the effort to try to keep my beliefs aligned with truth - that includes checking sources, avoiding misrepresentation and being willing to change my mind. You avoid all these things. Indeed your comment seems to be an admission that I was correct and that all through this conversation your claims that the truth was actually important to you were false all along.

That's because it doesn't make any sense. It's like the suffering problem; can't be explained so ignored. It's simple learned cultural behaviour. It's how civilisations - and children (and chimps) - develop. Can't you see how one-sided this is? God is responsible for the good in us but we are responsible for the bad? This is just religious nonsense. Why can't you say “we have seen the friend and it is us?” At least we have evidence for that.

Of course. It is your view it seems that the most reasonable answer is to only look for the answers that can be based on what is close to 100% known. So then you say the following. That's all fine but both of us would agree that we have enough information to be firmly convinced that we can answer these questions with very close to 100% certainty.
Then you say: Yes, and all of those questions can be answered scientifically or materialistically.There are questions however that fall outside of that category. You and others contend that things like life itself just happened by mindless chance and then look at things that something as basic, but still as complex as, a single living cell that can reproduce and evolve to conscious life strictly by chance. Frankly I find that belief bizarre and largely rising from wanting to have absolute 100% answers.Nobody knows 100% whether or not life as we perceive it exists as a result of a pre-existing intelligence. I contend that the belief that it does is a far mor reasonable conclusion, although not 100%, that it does. We even have no way of knowing whether or not any life exists that we are unable to perceive with our 5 senses.We are like the 2 dimensional flatlanders in Abbot's book Flatland, except that we are 1 dimension up in our 3 dimensional world and unable to perceive and ridicule a 4 dimensional world. You have physical evidence of how life evolved. What evidence do you have that explains why life exists at all? You are simply answering the question by ignoring the question. Why do our perceptions of the world and our lives exist at all, as opposed to how life and the world evolved the way it has.