Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,227 Year: 5,484/9,624 Month: 509/323 Week: 6/143 Day: 6/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with being an Atheist (or Evolutionist)
Modulous
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 43 of 276 (538429)
12-06-2009 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Statman
12-06-2009 1:15 AM


iterated dilemmas
Some years ago, Robert Axelrod held a simple tournament to play iterated Prisoner's Dilemma...Initially, the nasty strategies were successful at the expense of the patsy strategies. But they were eventually overtaken by one or two 'nice' strategies. The most successful and simplest was called 'Tit for Tat'.
It should be noted that Tit for Tat doesn't always win and it does depend on the initial pool. For example, if there were lots of Tat for Tits (defect initially and the cooperate if the opponent cooperated) Tit for Tat would lose against Tit for two Tats (Cooperate first. If the opponent defects then cooperate on the next turn, if the defect again then defect and only begin the cooperation stage again if the opponent begins to cooperate).
Axelrod noted this first in fact - he calculated that Tit for Two Tats would have won the first tournament he held, but would have done poorly in the second which was more 'aggressive' (I believe people were trying to 'beat' Tit for Tat.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Statman, posted 12-06-2009 1:15 AM Statman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Statman, posted 12-07-2009 12:17 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 92 by Statman, posted 01-21-2010 10:02 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 113 of 276 (567365)
06-30-2010 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Statman
01-22-2010 9:25 AM


Re: iterated dilemmas
Well, you're right but I don't know why he even mention 'Tat for tit' it a discussion 'Tit for Tat' and I don't know that it would have any bearing on the success of 'Tit for Tat'.
Tat for tit draws against tit for tat, since they alternate between defecting and being betrayed. If we assume being betrayed is worth 0 and betraying is worth 5 after 50 rounds we'd see 125 points each.
Tit for tat against itself gets 150 points each under the same condition (cooperation being worth 3)
Tit for tat against tit for two tats ends the same
Tat for tit against tit for two tats leaves the score as 152 to tat for tit and 147 for tit for two tats.
So if there were lots of tit for two tats in the pool of players, Tat for Tit would draw against itself (50 points if mutual defection is 1 point) and tit for tat but will win against all those tit for two tats out there. So Tat for Tit ends up winning more games than the others (though obviously it does relatively poorly against itself, so it should be rare if we are keeping a running total).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Statman, posted 01-22-2010 9:25 AM Statman has not replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 124 of 276 (569153)
07-20-2010 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Big_Al35
07-19-2010 6:46 AM


Re: Clarity
The courts are full of cases which due to a "lack of evidence" are unsuccessfully prosecuted. More usually however, there is overwhelming evidence for a successful legal challenge but the perpetrator still goes acquitted due to technicalities, poor lawyers, costs, or a failure to interpret the evidence.
I wonder which of those applies in this case?
You forgot to mention miscarriages of justice: where a jury is deliberately kept ignorant of certain facts - or is given misleading information or is given information that they are not trained to understand and yet still 'find guilty'. Or when despite a lack of evidence, cultural biases on the jury result in them finding a person guilty (colour of skin, sex, attractiveness, personality, sympathy for the victim etc).
Kind of important when the prosecutors of creationism and anti-evolution are peddling demonstrable falsehoods to a jury of untrained people with a clear bias against the defendant (evolutionary biology) while skipping over the slight fact that as much as they try and smear the defendant they bring (un)surprisingly little evidence in favour of their hypotheses of creation etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Big_Al35, posted 07-19-2010 6:46 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 134 of 276 (569267)
07-21-2010 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Big_Al35
07-21-2010 6:39 AM


Who is trying to smear who? Here is your evidence that it is evolutionists who are trying to smear creationists.
I notice you didn't discuss the substance of my criticism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Big_Al35, posted 07-21-2010 6:39 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 198 of 276 (582118)
09-19-2010 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by riVeRraT
09-19-2010 8:48 PM


Suicide is dangerous
If that were true, then could you name me one suicide bomber from the religion of Buddhism? Or Jainism? Or Hinduism? Or Christianity? Judaism? No...just Muslims. So it is an isolated problem and one associated solely with the Muslim faith. The bomber is not acting on his/her own beliefs, but the beliefs of their religion.
I am pretty sure that is not true. Someone chime in here. Lots of killing has gone on in the name of "god" throughout the centuries.
Samson was a famous Jewish suicide killer if we're to accept the account of him killing the philistines he was a bigger killer than Atta.
There are the Tamil Tigers...but they are a secular/political group that may use religion to direct their weapons.
The Japanese Kamikaze pilots...dying for a divine god-emperor.
Buddhists have been known to set themselves on fire or starve themselves to death, but I can't think of any suicide/killers.
Again, you will never find God that way. It is by faith only. If you are not willing to live by faith, then you will never know God.
Can you name anything else that can be found this way? If not - why the special pleading?
Human imagined? Prove that one, or else stop saying it.
Imagine the God of the Bible was real.
QED

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by riVeRraT, posted 09-19-2010 8:48 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by riVeRraT, posted 09-19-2010 9:29 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 204 of 276 (582125)
09-19-2010 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by riVeRraT
09-19-2010 9:19 PM


trust
Atheism IS a faith. It doesn't have a religion, but it is a faith.
By your definition EVERYTHING is based on faith - which rather dilutes the word. Faith is not the same as belief. One can have faith in something, without believing it (indeed - this is the ultimate act of faith). One can believe something, but not have any faith (I believe my newly built table will function, but I'll test it before laying dinner on it).
The problem comes when you ask 'Why do you have faith in x' how do you answer?
Faith means 'trust'. And experience has shown me that when someone says 'My claim is true, I can't prove it, I can't show it to you, you'll just have to trust me - it's the only way to know I'm telling the truth.', while asking for some investment of my time or money - they are often wasting them.
If I were to do otherwise - I'd be broke and I'd believe in the most monstrous collection of mutually exclusive concepts.
Do I hold the belief state, with faith, that god does not exist: No.
Have I accepted the claim that such an entity exists? No.
Do I hold the belief state, with faith, that god does exist: No.
Do I think there is such an entity? I doubt it.
Why do you doubt it: Epistemological reasoning.
Do you have faith in your epistemological reasoning: Yes.
Why? It builds space ships and solar panels while also helping to avoid conmen, frauds, swindlers and snake oil salesman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by riVeRraT, posted 09-19-2010 9:19 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2010 1:24 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 237 of 276 (582308)
09-20-2010 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by riVeRraT
09-20-2010 1:24 PM


Re: trust
And experience has shown me that when someone says 'My claim is true, I can't prove it, I can't show it to you, you'll just have to trust me - it's the only way to know I'm telling the truth.
Well, I don't think that way, or speak that way, and neither did Jesus.
Not those same words - because when put like that it becomes rather transparent. You believe Jesus Christ is our saviour and was God and did miracles. You claim this is true.
so
quote:
My claim is true
Check.
You also state that you can't prove it.
quote:
I can't prove it, I can't show it to you
Check
You also say that 'God wants us to believe by faith' which is basically saying
quote:
you'll just have to trust me
Check
Now of course- most people say "But it isn't me you have to trust, it's God/Jesus." - but God isn't making the claims. You are claiming that God is making the claims, not just you but all other Christians.
Of course - if you can do better than that - I'm all ears. Why should I accept your claims if the answer is not "you have to take it on faith!" - or can you explain why faith is something different than trust?
Don't confuse trust with faith, or belief.
You seem to be confusing them. Faith and trust are very related terms, surely? Everytime I've discussed it with a theist they have confirmed that having faith is basically equivalent to having trust. You hold the belief, not because of the evidence, but because you have decided to trust the claims are true very strongly.

Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen, and have believed.

If you have a different version that most of the people I've spoken with before - spit it out
I think Jesus taught us a bunch of things, and if you can see the truth in those things, then you are on your way to faith.
So to be clear - do I need to see the truth in what Jesus taught which will lead to faith or do I need faith to see the truth in what Jesus taught? It's important to know - because Christians keep giving me different answers depending on where abouts in the argument we are (usually, by the end, I need to have faith to see the truth).
Surely I need to have faith that the 'teachings' are indeed Jesus' teaching and not the teachings of someone else?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2010 1:24 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Tram law, posted 09-20-2010 7:29 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 239 of 276 (582323)
09-20-2010 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Tram law
09-20-2010 7:29 PM


NIV
Now you'd think there was not much of a difference between the versus, but there is one difference. The word accord is missing in the NIV version, and that changes the meaning of the entire verse.
According to Webster's dictionary, the word accord means to bring into agreement.
So, without the word accord in the NIV version, that would mean that they were not in agreement with each other. That changes the entire message, does it not?
If you had never read any other version of the Bible but the NIV would you have concluded that they were not in agreement? I don't know for a fact - but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that NIV scholars thought the 'accord' was a later addition, or maybe they just thought it redundant.
If God were all powerful and omnipotent, why would he allow these kinds of variations and interpretations of his words?
Remember the tower of Babel?
The real question is - why not preserve the originals if they were so important? But this is a Bible Study topic and so we should probably leave it there

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Tram law, posted 09-20-2010 7:29 PM Tram law has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by jar, posted 09-20-2010 8:05 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024