Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9094 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,666 Year: 12,778/6,534 Month: 61/2,210 Week: 2/390 Day: 2/20 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Barrier
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8779
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(3)
Message 1 of 67 (848548)
02-09-2019 6:07 AM


I came across this quote from a creationist the other day
—Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.” G.R. Bozhart
We humans are permanently in a search for answers to everything. Anyone with kids has heard the frustrated question 'but why daddy? from their frustrated child a million times. But people like Mr Bozhart already have the answer. We see it in different forms here a lot, from Faith's biblical inerrancy to Phat's 'I believe this, so there must be some other way to make this work in reality' approach to GDR's rationalisations and plasticity of belief. But in the end it's all the same, they already had the answer and therefore anything that seems to contradict it is wrong. Already 'knowing' the answer is The Barrier to knowledge.
We're all the same of course, we all have our ideas that we think are correct and that's why the scientific method was invented - to sort the snake oil from the asprin. We're all ok with the rational, critical thinking approach when it's something we personally don't have any emotional investment in, but as soon as it crosses into that territory all our defensive mechanisms spring into action. Where we stand affects what we can see.
I had absolutely nothing to do yesterday and the weather was vile so I went to Evolution Fairytales and watched Mike the Wiz with increasing fascination. He's an amazing egotist, often incredibly impressed with his own arguments, gloating about having PROVED something in highlights and multicolours and is almost always wrong.
I don't mean wrong as in got the wrong anwer - though of course he has - but as in thinking wrong. He's learned every fallacy in the book and believes that he's a great logical philosopher but he commits all the logical sins he accuses other of - but in bold. (It seem that messing with text formating is determinate of the nutter.)
But MtW is pretty intelligent in the IQ way of the self taught. He just hasn't got the ability to self-criticise or self-regulate. He already has the answer; he thinks he's smart, he either not had or has rejected formal education and thinks that his ideas are as good as anybody else's in any area of knowledge.
This man can only convince himself but unfortuantely the internet has allowed him to connect with others of a similar shaped mind so they can form an echo chamber.
It's all pretty hopeless really, people aren't built to be rational, they can only create it artificially with procedure - in this case the scientific method - and there will always those that refuse to accept it because of prior belief.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 02-09-2019 6:14 AM Tangle has replied
 Message 10 by dwise1, posted 02-10-2019 12:56 AM Tangle has replied
 Message 28 by GDR, posted 02-12-2019 4:22 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 33 by Stile, posted 02-13-2019 12:51 PM Tangle has not replied
 Message 59 by ramoss, posted 02-17-2019 6:15 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8779
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 3 of 67 (848550)
02-09-2019 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPhat
02-09-2019 6:14 AM


I've edited 3rd para - see if that's any clearer.
And no, you're not one of the nutters ;-)

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 02-09-2019 6:14 AM AdminPhat has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8779
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 5 of 67 (848558)
02-09-2019 12:10 PM


I don't mean to turn this into a Mike the Wiz thread but he's such an arse that it's hard not to make him the archetype. Try this one:
quote:
There's nothing to say about my post dealing with abiogenesis and evolution so I didn't read the responses from Popeye or anyone else as I won't get into quibbling the finer points as a diversion from my argument, I am afraid it is just one of those posts which aren't debatable, you either accept it or you don't, I am afraid there is no way out, the deductive reason I used is correct so in this instance there is nothing more to say.
Which was hailed by one of his acolytes....
quote:
Let me not fail to mention 'Mike The Wiz' for his God given logical abilities to put the conjoined twins ( Abiogenesis & erroneous evolution) together also. So without further 'Ado' BRAVO also Mike!!
Mike in his modest way, accepts the plaudits...
quote:
It's amazing over the years how many people have contacted me asking either for help arguing against atheistic evolution, one student even asked for help in their philosophy class, others join and feel the need to appreciate what I write by messaging me, etc...
I'm not saying that to boast even though the Toad is my mischief-avatar, I'm actually saying this because it's an example of reductio ad absurdum;
"If I have no ability to be correct then lots of people will contact me saying I have ability, asking for help, saying my posts are intelligent and a high IQ atheist will recognise my abilities."
: "ABSURD that wouldn't follow, therefore if they do these things, it follows that I do have ability for why would they mention it if I hadn't mentioned it?"
[ . ]
I am the Toad! The brilliant, the magnificent the indefatigable toad! Ho ho! Smart bit of work that. A good lad Popoi but no intelligence, one day I really have to take him in hand." The Toad swaggered down the road, his head high in the air. - Wind In the Willows.
emphasis as original.
I suppose some of this behaviour could be forgiven if we were witnessing some real genius at work but his outpouring is almost always utter drivel. This is what all the acclaim is over
quote:
”If there was an abiogenesis then there was an evolution."
So;
"if there was no evolution of life then there was no abiogenesis." (because giraffes and trees can't be reduced in time, to simpler forms)
Therefore the whole point of abiogenesis is to supply the common ancestor for evolution. Abiogenesis only has relevance to evolution theory because if life did not get here by evolution then there can't be any abiogenesis.
I mean, that bit of error-ridden pseudo logic is actually a great example of 'not even wrong' and I wonder why he can't see it. He's put an awful lot of effort into learning that form of logical argument and its jargon, he's not totally stupid, but somehow he can't use the tool.
He's a golfer that has learned the rules of golf, studied the physics of the swing, bought the clubs but try as he might, can't hit the ball. But doesn't seem to notice. In his mind every shot is a hole in one. His prior belief tells him that he is correct, hence, as he says, he has no need to even read any criticism of his argument. He has no need to look in the hole for his ball, just tee up another one for the next hole in one.
What's even stranger is that the actual argument he wants to make is quite simple.
It's that the ToE relies on something (colour it purple, put it in itallics and bold) to evolve from. Biologists haven't yet found that something and because it supposedly happened billions of years ago and must have been invisible to the naked eye, you almost certainly never will.
Hands up, we agree.
Doesn't change a thing though, evolution is an observation.
And it doesn't rely on abiogenesis being correct or incorrect.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-09-2019 12:41 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8779
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 7 of 67 (848560)
02-09-2019 1:51 PM


This is a character called What If. He promotes himself as an agnostic which should imply some doubt, yet...
quote:
the major problem i see is that the layman has NO WAY of confirming "the findings of science" in regards to the age of the universe.
i don't want to hear about the supposed stability of radioactive decay.
furthermore, i've shown without doubt that science has a "shady" side, where the opposing viewpoint is edited out of its papers.
This agnostic doesn't want to hear about radioactive decay becasue he can't understand the science and doesn't trust scientists.
He says that science has a dark side because it doesn't publish the things he agrees with - those that contradict his religious beliefs.
There are multiple problems here.
He can't understand the science.
Firstly, there's no reason why he should. I don't. It's quite hard.
The difference between us is that I accept the science but he doesn't. I suppose the reason why I accept it is that I accept the process that discovered and explained it. I guess he doesn't.
He doesn't understand it and yet he disagrees with it.
That's hard to pin down. Without understanding, he disagrees. Obviously this is because he's forced to because it contradicts his belief.
But he also doesn't want to hear about it.
It seems to me that this person actually knows that the science is probably correct but is afraid that if he tried to understand it he'd have a bit of a crisis.
He doesn't trust science
He says science has a shady side which is proven by something he knows about editing out opposing viewpoints. I don't know what specifically he's referring to but it's a common enough complaint from creationists and comes in various forms that resolve to 'teaching the controversy'.
I think all these arguments derive from a misunderstanding of what science is and what it does. The majority of science's work is in posing and testing hypotheses, gathering evidence and forming conclusions from it. It's not a political discussion where a moderator is trying to provide a balance of for and against discussion. You WILL get a section on weaknesses in the study identified by the author - this is often a bid for further funding but it never includes theistic considerations. In the discussion section of a science paper you will never see the author of say, a radiometric dating finding say that 'of course this contracticts the YEC hypothesis of biblical dating methods'. That's as irrelevant to him as what the economics lecturer next door is saying about the 2008 banking crash.
What ifs obsession with his own prior beliefs means that he's forced to take a different stance to discoveries in science that contradict it to sciences that don't. He won't, for example, worry about the penicillin he's taking for his infection even though the same method is used to confirm its efficaciousness as is used to confirm rates if radioactive decay.
But why can't he see this?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8779
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 8 of 67 (848561)
02-09-2019 3:20 PM


This is BlitzKing
quote:
The odds against life arising from dead matter has been firmly established as way, way, way, above and beyond the mathematical threshold of possibility of 1 in 10 > 50 power.. You CANNOT sit there and play dumb and say that a SUPERNATURAL CAUSATION (GOD DID IT) is not THE required scientific explanation.. You no longer get to commandeer the word "Science" merely because you have forged a neurotic agreement with other like minded fools because you simply "Cannot allow a divine foot in the door". It is no longer acceptable.
This chap also doesn't know what science is - do any of them? - but he then comes up with this quote from a scientist to support his view...
quote:
"The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 to 10-340,000,000. This number is 1 to 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering, since there is only supposed to be approximately 10-80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!"
(Professor Harold Morowitz)
So I immediately thought that this was a creation 'scientist' but he's not, he's a proper, real scientists. Unfortunately, he appears not to agree with BlitzKing in a pretty fundamental way
quote:
Morowitz's book Energy Flow in Biology laid out his central thesis that "the energy that flows through a system acts to organize that system,"[12] an insight later quoted on the inside front cover of The Last Whole Earth Catalog. He was a vigorous proponent of the view that life on earth emerged deterministically from the laws of chemistry and physics,[13] and so believed it highly probable that life exists widely in the universe.[5][14]
In 1983, he testified at "McLean v. Arkansas" (nicknamed "Scopes II") that creationism has no scientific basis and so should not be taught as science in public schools.[15]
Harold J. Morowitz - Wikipedia
I haven't researched this further, I don't need to do I? He's cherry-picked this quote because it appears to agree with his prior belief.
Well that's my prior belief anyway.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Theodoric, posted 02-09-2019 10:54 PM Tangle has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8779
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 11 of 67 (848565)
02-10-2019 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by dwise1
02-10-2019 12:56 AM


dwise1 writes:
But there are many questions, such as moral and ethical questions, to which the scientific method does not apply very well, if at all.
I wonder. Perhaps we've not tried very hard yet?
I know Sam Harris has done quite a lot of work on the 'science' of morality and believes that it *is* possible to objectively evaluate moral actions. I haven't read any of his books on this but in principle I think there's something in it. From memory, he uses the concept of wellbeing as the thing to be measured against policies and actions.
Religion has certainly proven unable to be trusted with these concepts. Even when it has it's hands fully wrapped around the 'golden rule', it manages to pollute and corrupt it beyond recognition.
So far our best attempts at creating societies based on real moral values has been based on our criminal justice systems which he hope is informed by an evidence base of what's right and what's wrong and what works. It's clunky and crude, being almost entirely punishment based but I guess it's a start.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by dwise1, posted 02-10-2019 12:56 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8779
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 13 of 67 (848609)
02-12-2019 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Theodoric
02-10-2019 6:28 PM


The Fairytales site has been down for more than 24 hours now - looks like god hacked them. Maybe he's not happy with them.
quote:
Fatal error: Uncaught exception 'IPS\Db\Exception' with message 'No such file or directory' in /home/evotales/public_html/forum/system/Db/Db.php:205 Stack trace: #0 /home/evotales/public_html/forum/system/Db/Db.php(119): IPS\_Db::_establishConnection('IPS\\Db', Array, false) #1 /home/evotales/public_html/forum/system/Session/Store/Database.php(77): IPS\_Db::i() #2 /home/evotales/public_html/forum/system/Session/Front.php(283): IPS\Session\Store\_Database->updateSession(Array) #3 [internal function]: IPS\Session\_Front->write('') #4 {main} thrown in /home/evotales/public_html/forum/system/Db/Db.php on line 205

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Theodoric, posted 02-10-2019 6:28 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8779
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 17 of 67 (848624)
02-12-2019 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by mike the wiz
02-12-2019 8:07 AM


MtW writes:
Tangle, do you believe in, or do the readers believe in, "hearing the other side of the story". (Because the way you talk about me here, one would think I had committed a crime in your book by merely existing.)
Welcome back to the dark side Mike. Sorry your normal lecturn is off line.
I'm was on the fairytales site to hear the 'other side' as the other side doesn't seem to want to come here anymore. Although I have heard the otherside's arguments form many years. They don't change sadly.
The example you quoted out-of-context I think most people of ordinary intelligence would realise was a 100% tongue-in-cheek BOAST.
It's a boast alright. As for tongue in cheek - it's an easily seen through ploy. But it's all there to be seen (or used to be) so others can make up their own mind.
Did they [defenses] ah, perhaps spring into action here in this thread my dear fellow? It seems to me you have sprung a tirade rather than a leak, and now your rhetorical spin is all over my shoes.
Yes, they did. I have an allergic reaction to crap but i persevered. I can recognise when I'm reacting against something and try to overcome it. Sometimes it's very, very hard. I spent 4 hours reading multiple threads and much as you think that it's all about you, it isn't. You are very active there so you appear frequently but at least you're not actually obviously insane like some of the others.
CONCLUSION: If the theme of your topic is true, could it be that it most pertains to you? What can't you see about your behaviour which I can, for example? What can I see in your posts, you can't?
I don't think so Mike. It would require some form of mental derangement to believe that the earth was young against all the evidence. Similarly - but perhaps not quite so obviously - with evolution. In those areas the science is quite firm - to believe otherwise simply requires a religious belief, which I don't possess.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 02-12-2019 8:07 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by mike the wiz, posted 02-12-2019 11:34 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8779
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 18 of 67 (848626)
02-12-2019 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by mike the wiz
02-12-2019 8:36 AM


Mike the Toad writes:
toad for example, is a character from Wind in the willows, he is a boastful braggart, I use him as one of my characters, I basically pretend to be him, and the poster, "killur-bluff" already knew I was taking the piss.)
Yes I know that Mike. Like I say, it's a good ruse. The problem is, it's totally transparent that you have an exceptionally high opinion of yourself. For no good reason.
So I apologise if I came across as an, "arse", and shall try to do better in future, and try and listen more.
It's not about listening, it's about thinking. You project this cloud of distorted logic and erronious, convoluted argument. It impresses the sheep but it's nonsense to anyone with a brain and actual knowledge.
The point I'm making is this, you only see me as your enemy not realising I'm not really anyone's enemy.
I do not. Bad ideas and bad thinking are my enemies.
But on a personal level I don't hate atheists.
You're supposed to be a Christian, I'd take that as the base level - why would anyone hate atheisists?
I even appreciate them.
Sheesh. I bet some of your friends are homosexuals too?
Can't we all just get along.
Sure, like I said, this thread isn't about you, it's about the barrier to thinking that religion puts up. If you'd like to contribute to that point, maybe we could make progress. How can knowing the answer not affect your ability to think objectively about a problem?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mike the wiz, posted 02-12-2019 8:36 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by mike the wiz, posted 02-12-2019 11:43 AM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8779
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 21 of 67 (848632)
02-12-2019 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by mike the wiz
02-12-2019 11:34 AM


MtW writes:
It's "trash in, trash out", unfortunately 90% of your posts seem to be trash.
So far you haven't added anything to this thread except to comment on my comments about you. Well ok, you've done that now. So how about actually contributing to the thread?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by mike the wiz, posted 02-12-2019 11:34 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8779
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 22 of 67 (848636)
02-12-2019 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by mike the wiz
02-12-2019 11:43 AM


MtW writes:
So the question is, do you assume knowledge and Christianity are mutually exclusive? I find the two are usually in agreement.
Finally we get you off the subject of you and almost onto the topic of the thread. But you don't get to change the question into one you'd rather answer or redirect it back to me. This is the opener. How can knowing the answer before you start not affect your ability to objectively consider it?
I came across this quote from a creationist the other day
quote:
—Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.”
G.R. Bozhart
We humans are permanently in a search for answers to everything. Anyone with kids has heard the frustrated question 'but why daddy? from their frustrated child a million times. But people like Mr Bozhart already have the answer. We see it in different forms here a lot, from Faith's biblical inerrancy to Phat's 'I believe this, so there must be some other way to make this work in reality' approach to GDR's rationalisations and plasticity of belief. But in the end it's all the same, they already had the answer and therefore anything that seems to contradict it is wrong. Already 'knowing' the answer is The Barrier to knowledge.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by mike the wiz, posted 02-12-2019 11:43 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 02-12-2019 12:17 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8779
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 26 of 67 (848649)
02-12-2019 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by mike the wiz
02-12-2019 12:17 PM


Mike the Wiz writes:
Oh but I am afraid I do Sir. In fact I shall do precisely what I like, when I choose to, as long as I am not breaking the forum rules. And indeed I have done what I have done, AND I did "get to do it".
Well of course you can do what you wish, but if by doing so you simply show to all that you're evading the question, why would you?
The thread as proposed is about belief being a barrier to knowledge. So far you've made several posts that don't address that. Perhaps you could make a start?
And right now I feel I am done with this forum for a while.
I think that would be a letting your side down, don't you think? Leaving before making a single attempt to respond looks like you don't have an answer; surely not so?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 02-12-2019 12:17 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8779
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 29 of 67 (848664)
02-12-2019 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by GDR
02-12-2019 4:22 PM


GDR writes:
Interesting Tangle that you can't apply this to yourself. When it comes to items of religion you are as dogmatic as anybody on this forum.
I do apply it to myself and go on to explain how. Trying to remain objective is important to me. I'm certainly dogmatic about many of the things that I've come to feel sure about. But I'll change my mind about anything, all that's necessary is evidence. I'm pretty dogmatic about that too.
But this isn't about me - or MtW, or you, or Phat or Faith - it's about how thinking you know the answer to a question prevents you being able be objective about thinking about it. Anything to say about that?
Also it is interesting that you accuse me of plasticity, and of rejecting ideas that would cause me to adjust my beliefs, all in the same paragraph.
That's not an accusation, that's a report. You hold very liberal views that have allowed you to reject the parts of the bible that you can not agree with. You tell us this yourself.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by GDR, posted 02-12-2019 4:22 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by GDR, posted 02-12-2019 6:16 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8779
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 31 of 67 (848674)
02-13-2019 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by GDR
02-12-2019 6:16 PM


GDR writes:
There is the problem though of what constitutes evidence, or sufficient evidence.
There's no problem with what constitutes evidence. What constitutes sufficient evidence to convince a reasonable person about a conclusive result is a little more problematic but science has some rules about such things. And of course nothing religious has even approached the level of confidence necessary to pass such a test. That is why you have a belief not knowledge.
Again, I think this applies to both of us and our views of evidence.
As I've said, it does apply to all of us. Humans struggle to be rational, that's why the scientific method was invented - it's a process to remove bias.
But, again, this thread isn't about us, it's about prior and obvious bias. This statement is the pefect example of it and I think that it explains why creationists can not ever accept evidence.
quote:
Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.” G.R. Bozhart
This is a very similar statement
I think also that when you claim that I have to rationalize my views there is some truth to that in having to accept the belief that God is good and loving with the fact of suffering in the world.
That subjective view prevents you accepting contrary evidence - in particular it prevents you accepting 'evidence' from the bible itself. You reject the 'hard' passages. Fair enough, but interesting never-the-less.
So is this equivalent?
I think also that when you claim that I have to rationalize my views there is some truth to that in having to accept the belief that God is good and loving with the fact of suffering in the world.
I think not because we know beyond all objective doubt that people do not rise again from the dead. (That is properly dead, dead.). We have not one single confirmed miracle and the biblical accounts of them in your book do not even begin to approach the level of even poor evidence. That's why it's called a belief and it can't be changed by evidence.
We also have obvious and apparent everyday evidence of suffering and eventually death in every single piece of 'god's creation' for ever. A human that set up such an experiment would be condemned as the worst kind of evil imaginable. But you shrug that off without effort. That's prior bias very hard at work.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by GDR, posted 02-12-2019 6:16 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by WookieeB, posted 02-13-2019 12:43 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 38 by GDR, posted 02-13-2019 8:08 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8779
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 34 of 67 (848681)
02-13-2019 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by WookieeB
02-13-2019 12:43 PM


WookieB writes:
So, since you have some objective test in mind, what is it?
That would depend on the particular thing that you're looking to test. What do you have in mind?
This probably relates back to my question above, but what evidence is sufficient? If it isn't a subjective standard, then what specifically is it?
Again, there are multiple methods, what did you have in mind? If we're talking about testing modern day miracles, that's very easy you have a set up like Randi's.
One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge - Wikipedia

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by WookieeB, posted 02-13-2019 12:43 PM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by WookieeB, posted 02-13-2019 4:48 PM Tangle has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022