Choosing a faith

You quoted my answer to this:Just ask them!If you think you have an issue with people lying or "not being able to know what is in their heart" - it is not an issue with identifying motivation.
And that's why studies on such issues are done over and over again, with various people, in double-blind scenarios... a known method for successfully battling "lying."
​
Double-blind studies are verified to be able to identify "what is in their heart."
That's why they work.
That's why we're able to successfully study societies and measure things like happier people and over-worked people and stress levels and "having fun." Again - I already did. Here it is again, all 2 million papers. Go nuts. Evolution of Morality - over 2 million, evidenced papers for you to read. This evidence is not "speculative" it's peer-reviewed (duplicated and objective) and vastly, vastly studied and tested.

• Evolution of Morality - an online book
• The evolution of morality - a paper from 2015
• The evolution of morality - "...a concise biological account of the evolution of morality."
• The structural evolution of morality

I can't do your homework for you.
There is no one-paragraph "easy answer" to this question. It is complex and involves a lot of various aspects. That's why there's over 2 million different papers.
I've given you the easy answer. If you want the "know if it's really real..." well - you'll have to do the work. Thousands and thousands of people have dedicated their entire lives to identifying these answers. They have been tested and verified and scrutinized and corrected for years by these same people from all over the world. It's all there for you to look at it. Your choice if you're interested in the truth - or if you want to make up an excuse and attempt to put blame on others for you not doing your own homework. You keep using that phrase - I don't think idda means what you think idda means.Looking for God, everywhere, and not finding God - is evidence that God does not exist.
Of course, we don't only "not find God" - we always find natural explanations for thing people used to say "only God can do that!" They were all wrong. You're just one more in the same line.

Perhaps that's the problem.You start with "something that makes sense to GDR."
When this thing that "makes sense to GDR" is put up against evidence that casts doubt on it - you ignore the evidence and refuse to accept that the thing that "makes sense to GDR" may be untrue.I don't start with "something that makes sense to Stile."
I don't hold anything that "makes sense to Stile" as impenetrable to evidence that casts doubt on it.
There are plenty of things that "made sense to Stile" that were shown to be untrue by evidence.
-there were people I thought liked me. Turns out they didn't.
-I used to think "auras" didn't exist. Turns out they do.. for some people, anyway. Certain kinds of synesthetes are able to "see auras" around people. It's a very real thing. Even science has studied this "supernatural" topic and gained lots of useful information from it.Our best-known-method for identifying truth has shown us over and over again that "things that make sense to us" doesn't mean jack-all when identifying the truth about reality. That's why it's a terrible place to build a hill to die on with. Because you're gonna die. And everyone will see that your hill was nothing but a house of cards. Um... what more do you need? Why isn't proving that it's impossible enough to show you that it didn't happen? A materialistic view doesn't show it's impossible. It's impossible because it never happens, and never did happen. Regardless of a materialistic view, or a supernatural view, or a polkadot view or any other view you'd like to have. True. But, since it didn't happen - what does this tell you? Okay - but taking a starting point of "an idea that makes sense to GDR" is not a starting point that holds "identifying the truth" as a highest priority. It's very well known to lead to being wrong. That's not true.
You said it yourself - your starting point is "holding an idea that makes sense to GDR" - that clearly and brazenly flies in the face of having the truth as your first priority.You can't wriggle out of this - you either follow "our best known method for identifying the truth about reality" and hold "finding the truth" as your highest priority - or you don't.Why aren't you able to be honest about this?There's nothing wrong with holding a belief.
There's nothing wrong with holding an idea that "makes sense to GDR."It's just not compatible with also holding "identifying the truth of our reality" as your highest priority.

This has no impact on what method is "our best for identifying the truth about reality."
And therefore is not a reasonable idea for avoiding our best methods for identifying the truth about reality when attempting to know the truth. This is easily shown to be wrong. Science telling us what motivates peopleOver 5 million papers. Here are a few:

• An introduction to motivation
  
• Teaching and Researching: Motivation
  
• Social Motivation
  
• Motivation and Action

Well - you're wrong, as the above links show you.
You can confirm their answer by asking more people in the same/similar situations to get a consensus. If the consensus works to predict other people's motivations correctly - then you know it's correct. If not - then you adjust the studies accordingly until you start to get it right. This has been done for decades and the process is highly refined at this point.Again - just because you are unaware of the process or the sophistication of these procedures doesn't mean they don't work. It just means you're ignorant of our knowledge as a human species as a whole.
This is fine - I'm ignorant of a whole whack of stuff too. Who isn't?The difference is - when looking for the truth of reality, I will go and see what our best-known-methods-for-identifying-truth point us towards. You seem to only accept what our best-known-methods point us towards if they agree with things that "make sense to GDR." Which is a known issue and is highly likely to cause you to be incorrect. We know we are not influenced by God because we have attempted to identify God's influence and always only found natural no-God-present-at-all answers.
We looked for it, and it doesn't exist. Of course we know why.
We know that abiogenesis happens because it's chemistry and that's what happens when such chemicals get together in those quantities.
That's not "by chance." That's just "physics." And that most certainly is a "why it happened." It's just a "why" that you don't particularly like.
It's like asking "but why does the water cycle occur?"
The water cycle occurs because that's what happens when that much water is present on a planet.
No one cares if GDR likes this "why" for the water cycle - and there's no fuss over it because everyone happens to agree.Abiogenesis occurs because that's what happens when those chemicals are present in those quantities.
There is a very large portion of society that does care if GDR likes this "why" for abiogenesis - because they don't like it either - and they want to have a "why" that they feel comfortable with.
Which, again - punches our best-known-method-of-identifying-truth right in the nose. Who cares about truth? We want to feel comfortable! Well - truth doesn't care about your comfort level.You seem to be saying "but what if God exists and He has a reason?"
The answer is: First, show any reasonable idea that suggest that God exists in the first place. Then we can begin to discuss if God was actually responsible, and then (if God exists, and actually was responsible...) we can begin to discuss what God's motivation might be.You're jumping ahead 2 really, really, really, really big steps and just assuming them to be true.
This is the blatant disregard for our best-known-method-of-identifying-truth.At this point, we know why abiogenesis occurs, and we have no reason to think there's anything more "behind" that then "because this is how things work."

I don't restrict myself or ignore anything. I've asked for you over and over to show me anything more - and you have not. I want there to be more, it would be fascinating to learn about. But, so far, there just isn't. And, really, many aspects are even more fascinating to learn about to see how natural processes are responsible for them. "God-did-it" is not very interesting to learn about. But evolution and planet creation and solar system formation... are all fascinating natural processes. I investigate "why does this happen?"
And all the investigation ever shows is: Because of natural processes. And we learn more and more about fascinating, awe-inspiring natural processes. They're really beautiful.I don't think they happened out of the blue by chance - I think they happened because of why they happened.
I don't disregard any idea of an external intelligence - you've just never been able to show that an external intelligence actually exists in the first place. Let alone that an external intelligence actually did anything. Let alone on top of that - why an external intelligence did the things you seem to want them to. Yes.
When attempting to learn about the truth:
I follow our best-known-method-for-identifying-truth.
You follow... a similar-ish method with a few quirks that's known for being incorrect... specifically because of those quirks.It's really strange. Such a phrase only holds weight if you begin your ideas based on evidence.
You do not begin your ideas based on evidence. You begin your ideas based on "what's seems right to GDR."If you didn't hold evidence as a high enough priority to base the foundation of the position you hold - then what makes you think evidence will change your mind?
The evidence already shows that you are wrong. You're already ignoring it. I've provided millions and millions and millions of papers of evidence showing you this - and you're acting as if they don't exist. I keep saying that processes are evidence of processes.
I keep saying that after looking everywhere, and not finding a deity - is evidence of the non-existence of a deity. Your analogy doesn't apply, because you keep building a straw-man version of what I'm saying to you.
I do not think processes are evidence of the non-existence of a deity.
Therefore - I do not think that an automobile assembly line is the sole cause of the cars they produce.To use your provided analogy and apply it to what I'm actually saying:I think most cars are produced by assembly lines because that's what the studies and evidence show us.
I think some cars are produced by other methods because that's what the studies and evidence show us.
I do not think that any car was created by some sort of "external intelligence" without an assembly line or any other known-car-making-method because that's what the studies and evidence show us. No - it's based on what the evidence shows us. That is not a "pre-supposition." That is a "conclusion supported by evidence and our best-known-method-for-identifying-truth." I wouldn't.
Step 1 - Show that the supernatural exists (you haven't done this yet.)
Step 2 - Show that the supernatural did, actually, cause Jesus' resurrection (you haven't done this yet either.)
Step 3 - Once you show that the supernatural exists, AND that it did, actually "do it" - THEN we can start to reasonably discuss the reasons why the supernatural caused Jesus' resurrection to happen.Without you doing Step 1 and Step 2 - it is perfectly reasonable, and perfectly in-line with our best-known-method-for-identifying-truth to know that the resurrection never happened.Especially since we've attempted Step 1 and Step 2 - everywhere - and found that the supernatural does not actually exist. Some people just feel like it "makes sense" to them if it did. Can you read this sentence and have it actually make sense?Showing you examples of why life and emotions evolved - naturally - most certainly is evidence that an intelligence (God) is NOT responsible for those processes.
Just like showing you examples of why thunder and lightning occur - naturally - most certainly is evidence that an intelligence (Thor) is NOT responsible for those processes.Why wouldn't it be?Of course - they are not evidence for the non-existence of these intelligences.
The evidence for the non-existence of these intelligences is that we've looked - everywhere - for them, and have not found them.

If there was any way to learn about God and know that what you're learning is true - I would be enthralled with the subject.The problem is that all the "ways we know of to learn about God" are also known to include falsehoods, and lying and an unquestioning attitude.
Three things we have learned that are incredibly high indications of "learning about something that is incorrect."Our best known method for learning the truth includes:

• A questioning attitude
  Try to show it's wrong! If you win - you learn even more and create a pathway of learning the actual truth. If you lose - you've learnt more about why it's right. Either way you LEARN more about the truth.
• A self-correcting way to weed-out liars and ensure such knowledge is corrected
  All knowledge is tested multiple times by multiple people with varying personal motivations and cultural expectations.
  Not only are new results praised, but an investigation will occur on the "lying" results. If you're shown to be lying - you won't get any more work and you'll be shunned because you're lying about the truth
  
• A self-correcting way to weed-out falsehoods and ensure such knowledge is corrected
  If you correct someone else - you actually gain recognition instead of being shunned. Identifying other people's errors and getting closer to the truth is a mark of success not something to be quashed and stifled with tradition.
  Previous people's results that are shown to be wrong - buy they weren't lying about it - are praised and given credit for inspiring further investigations into that area. Being wrong is a good thing as it, eventually, leads to more knowledge that is closer to the truth.

If there were any ways to learn about God that included those sorts of ideas... it would be so exciting to learn!
However, this isn't what we have. We have nothing but obfuscation and protection of tradition - things we know all too well to be extremely high indications of "being wrong." I quoted this because I do not understand it.
I attempted to cut off the beginning of what you said in order to identify my best guess as to what "that????" is referring to.
I don't see any other way to parse the quote.But, when parsed like this... why wouldn't anyone want to spend time looking at really cool stuff?And, please understand - no one is looking for really cool stuff "rather than" searching for a higher authority.
If the search for a higher authority could provide any amount of knowledge that can withstand the above listed items required to know that it's "a part of the truth" - then it, too, would be "really cool stuff" and we would be looking at that with eager eyes!It's just, well, we do search for a higher authority while using our best known method for identifying the truth - and we never, ever find one. Even after looking everywhere, for thousands of years.

But... I don't.
I only insist on "any kind of evidence at all that we can know is actually real." Otherwise - it's not really evidence, is it? It's just an idea with no connection to reality. What good is that when attempting to identify what's real?It's not my fault that physical evidence is abundantly known as "a kind of evidence that we can know is actually real."
I didn't create the universe.It's not my fault that you seem unable to offer any other kind of evidence that we can know is actually real.
I'm not you.I'm not restricting or insisting anything.
This is just you not being able to bring anything worthwhile/reasonable to the table, getting upset at your own position, and taking it out on me. I agree that auto assembly lines scream out intelligent origins.
Auto assembly lines are minimally complex.But those incredible processes do not scream out intelligent origins. They are defiantly not "minimally complex." They are abundantly complex and overly complex. Some even seem "maximally complex for no reason other than to just be more and more complex to the point of causing their own problems due to their extreme, unnecessary complexity." Which is a known, tested, verified artifact of things that ARE NOT of intelligent origin. I agree that common sense tells us that life arose from a pre-existing intelligence.
Just like common sense also tells us that pressurized metal tubes don't fly.
Just like common sense also tells us that whales should be fish.Yet - reality shows us that whales are mammals.
Yet - reality shows us that airplanes exist.
Yet - reality shows us that a single cell, and even sentient life - through all processes that we definitely do know about (I've shown you millions and millions of papers explaining them) - arise from a lifeless planet.Go figure - our common sense is worthless when identifying reality.
Why do you continue to rely on it so much while also claiming to want to identify the truth as your highest priority?You say I start from this same position - and I do. But, when reality shows me differently, I allow reality to define reality and not my own common sense.
How do you stand there, insist that your common sense is correct, when reality is screaming at you that it's wrong... and still claim to have "seeking the truth" as your highest priority?That's the difference.I attempt to adapt my common sense to reality.
You attempt to adapt reality to your common sense.One of us is going to fail. Which questions would those be? As far as I can tell - I've answered every single question you've come up with. It's you who doesn't seem to want to acknowledge the hard answers. Again - the evidence of a pre-existing intelligence not being behind it all is because we've looked - everywhere - and not found any hint of any pre-existing intelligence. The individual acts of not finding pre-existing intelligence in each individual process is a part of that - but not all of it.If you think otherwise - show something - anything that hints at a pre-existing intelligence that you can show to be real.Absence of evidence is evidence of absence - when you look and it's not there.
You yourself agree that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence every time you look for oncoming traffic, don't see any and make your vehicle turn.I advise you to stop arguing against the facts that save you constantly and preserve your life - it makes you look silly. Right. Thor isn't necessary.
What shows us that Thor doesn't exist? Looking for Thor (in thunder and lightning and everywhere else) and not finding Thor.
What shows us that a pre-existing intelligence doesn't exist? Looking for a pre-existing intelligence (everywhere) and not finding a pre-existing intelligence.
What shows us that on-coming traffic doesn't exist and it's safe to turn? Looking for on-coming traffic (everywhere) and not finding on-coming traffic. Drive safe.

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."If it doesn't affect the physical; it's not possible for us to know about it - in any way - and all things we "think we know about it" are just made-up imaginary thoughts.
If it does affect the physical; then the things we think we know about it may be real - but then it's measurable/testable in some way and those tests are all coming up negative.I do, however, have a soft spot for the line of reasoning I like to take - that "evidence" can be non-physical - we just don't know of any yet. To me, it feels like the door is left open more for "the unknown to make itself known." But, perhaps that is an unnecessary complication to provide room for and just ends up adding confusion.Either way, really, I don't see a reasonable position for claiming that the supernatural is real.But, if you were to ask me personally, I do believe that there's "something weird going on" that we still don't know about that would explain some of the ghost-story-ish or other supernatural-ish things. I just don't try to defend it at all because... it's indefensible. I'm undecided if this "weird something" is actually external entities/processes or possibly just manifestations of the magnificence that is the human brain. I'm leaning towards brain-stuffs.

No, I can't think of one.
But I'm not ignoring any - I'm begging you to show me one, and you haven't yet. How is that ignoring it?
Show me anything at all that you can validate to be a part of reality - and I will love to look at it when attempting to find the truth about reality.If you can't validate it to be a part of reality - what good is it when attempting to find the truth about reality?How can you insist that I'm ignoring it when you refuse to show me one? No, my common sense agrees with you.
My common sense also tells me that life exists because of a pre-existing intelligence.But that's not what reality, and the evidence says. Reality says that life exists due to natural processes (abiogenesis and evolution.)Just like my common sense says that whales are fish.
But that's also wrong - reality says that whales are mammals. You're not very good at this game.Over 5 million papers again.
Evidence of how the first cell came into existence:

• Cell evolution and Earth history
  
• On the evolution of cells
  
• Endosymbiosis and Eukaryotic Cell Evolution
  
• The ancient Virus World and evolution of cells

And this does tell us something about whether or not an intelligence was responsible for the process. It tells us that no intelligence is found necessary for these processes. That, coupled with not being able to find a previous intelligence anywhere and everywhere else tells us that no previous intelligence existed or was involved. You're exactly right.The good news is - after looking around for God - we most certainly can find evidence. And the evidence says God is not necessary - for anything at all. And that God cannot be found - anywhere and everywhere we look. Which is the evidence saying that God does not exist.This would be similar to looking around for evidence of the rock tumble, and finding a lot of evidence:

• Previous pictures show that the rock was precariously balanced and likely to fall off the mountain
• Aerial footage at the time shows us that no person or animal or creature of any kind was around the rock at the time of it tumbling downhill
• Geological scans at the time show us that a minor earthquake occurred that caused the mountain to shake a little

Upon finding this evidence it shows us that the rock falling was natural. It shows us that "a pusher" does not exist for causing this rock to fall.Just like finding the evidence we have about everything we know of the universe shows us that this universe is natural. It shows us that "a pre-existing intelligence" does not exist.The rock evidence didn't have to be that way: Maybe previous pictures show a stable rock position. Maybe the aerial footage did show us some people, or a very close campsite or animal tracks or hairs/scat of close by creatures. Maybe there's no evidence of an earthquake or any other natural process that could be responsible.
This would be evidence that the rock was pushed.The universe evidence didn't have to be this way: Maybe studies of the sun actually show us magnetic traces of where sophisticated "ropes" could have been to pull it across the sky. Maybe studies of lightning actually show us large hand-prints used to "throw" the lightning. Maybe studies of evolution do not show a nested hierarchy and actually show indications of intelligent planning. Maybe studies of abiogenesis do not show that it's possible and actually show that there's no way such elements could have existed on earth naturally. Maybe studies of society do not show natural procession of human development and actually show leaps-and-bounds of technological progress that couldn't be possible without outside influence. Maybe studies of religious people show that they actually "get more right" about the world and create better technology. Maybe studies of religious people show that they really are happier or smarter or kinder people....This would be evidence that "a pre-existing intelligence" exists.
But... we don't find any of that, do we? We can't "absolutely" know the answer for anything at all.
Not even that GDR and Stile are currently posting on EvC forum. Can't "absolutely" know that. It's not possible.
But, we do have a "best-way-to-know-things" - and it involves following evidence that can be verified to be real.
And this method tells us that God does not exist. It is not "up in the air." It is not "still ongoing." It is not in contention.
It was... thousands of years ago, hundreds of years ago... maybe even tens-of-years ago. But, now - we just have too much information/data/evidence that tells us that God really does not exist.You can ignore it all you want.
It doesn't make it go away.

You exist and have intelligence and a set of moral values because you're a human being.
Human beings exist and have intelligence and a set of moral values.
Why is that?
Because that's what happens when you have a universe like ours.Rocks exist and do not have intelligence and roll down hills when pushed (or shook off by an earthquake.)
Why is that?
Because that's what happens when you have a universe like ours.The above we have evidence for.
The above we can show each and every part is linked to reality - and all natural, and we understand the processes involved.What makes you think a pre-existing anything exists?
What makes you think a pre-existing anything is intelligent?
What makes you think a pre-existing intelligence created the universe?
What makes you think a pre-existing intelligence created Earth specifically?
What makes you think a pre-existing intelligence created humans?
What makes you think a pre-existing intelligence created humans with intelligence?
What makes you think a pre-existing intelligence created humans with intelligence and moral values?...there is no link for any of those items to reality.So on one hand, we have millions and millions of papers worth of scientific evidence - our best known method for identifying truth - that says we are here because of the universe we have - just like rocks.On the other hand, we have a string of unsupported claims, none of them with any link to reality... and you think this "the most likely reason?"
While disregarding that our best known method for identifying truth says you're wrong?
While using other methods for identifying reasons that are known to be wrong?If that's "the most likely" to you - that's fine.
It seems clearly ridiculous to me. There is no evidence that can cause us to say absolutely that GDR and Stile are currently posting on EvC forum. Yet we both know that we are, don't we?
There is no evidence that can cause us to say absolutely anything at all. Yet we both claim to know a lot of things, don't we?
There is no evidence that can cause us to say on-coming traffic absolutely doesn't exist when we want to turn through an intersection. Yet we both drive safetly, don't we?Why are you insisting on an unobtainable standard for knowledge for this one thing that doesn't apply to any other knowledge we have about this universe? Fair enough - you do you. I have no problems with that at all.But, if you're also going to claim that your highest priority is to identify the truth...
while using known-to-be-wrong methods to make this claim about truth...
while ignoring that our best-known-method-for-identifying-truth also says that you're wrong...Well... I'm going to say you're wrong. Because that's wrong.

You keep using terms of absolute like "rule out."
The best method doesn't deal in absolutes like "rule out" because it's smart enough to know that new information can change anything because we don't know everything.Again - if you want to go against the best known method - that's your personal choice.
If numerous scientists are making the same error you are - that's their personal choice. There is a self-correcting feature in Science, where results are tested by many, many different people and errors are continuously corrected. Regardless of who makes them. This is not possible while you simultaneously ignore the results of our best method in identifying truth and actively engage in methods known to be wrong when identifying the truth.It's not possible for you to do that.
It's not possible for numerous scientists to do that.
It's not possible for me to do that - which is why I don't do it.It's that's simple.-------------------------
Added by Edit: My above response to this is incorrect - I missed the change in your position, sorry.
My above response is only applicable if you continue to insist that identifying the truth is your highest priority.If you lower your priority of finding the truth to be only "very important" to you and not "most important" then your claims can be reconciled together.
The only thing to remember is that finding the truth is not your highest priority - therefore, the things you claim to be true cannot be trusted when discussing certain situations that approach the other things you find "most important."

Easily shown to be wrong:Choosing good vs. evil:I see an old lady wanting to cross the street. I can:
-ask if she wants help and follow her directions accordingly (good)
-ignore her (not good, and possibly bad... but probably not "evil")
-kick her in the shins and run off (evil)This choice remains if everyone's ability to rape children is removed.
Besides, choosing to "not rape children" itself isn't even "good." It's more like the bare-minimum of existing without causing evil.Removing some evil does not remove all evil.
It most certainly does not remove choice, or the ability to choose good.
Not even close.

I'm trying to add clarity to the biased view inherent in almost everything you say. Like this: Agreed. In the same way:Science leaves open the possibility of Santa Claus - although it's current conclusion is that Santa Claus does not exist.
Science leaves open the possibility of Luminiferous Aether - although it's current conclusion is that Luminiferous Aether does not exist.
Science leaves open the possibility of Eric the God-Eating Magic Penguin - although it's current conclusion is that Eric the God-Eating Magic Penguin does not exist.
Science leaves open the possibility of an intelligent designer - although it's current conclusion is that an intelligent designer does not exist.Science leaves open the possibility of everything and anything imaginable at all - although it's current conclusion is that after looking for evidence: anything without evidence or anything not linked to reality in any way does not exist. And that's illogical.
The so-called best method has the only known positive track record for being correct about things it doesn't have answers to... as shown by what we know after the answers are discovered.
And you don't want to use it for such things? This is exactly why it should be used for such things - if you hold "finding the truth" as your highest priority.
Every other method known to humanity has a negative track record for such things. Like "makes sense to me" or "feels right" or "seems like it should be." All of those have negative track records when answers are currently unknown and then we learn and they become known. This is easily shown to be false. Since there's no existence of a deity, after we've excruciatingly looked for thousands of years... it's quite clear that this is in it's purview, and the conclusion is that a deity does not exist. Show this.
Because it doesn't seem to be true.What seems to be true is that there are things we know, and things we don't know. And then we learn about the things we don't know. And this causes the "things we know" column to keep getting bigger and bigger and bigger.
There have been many, many, many things people have claimed are "unknowable" but are now known:

• Crossing the ocean to find North and South America
• Circumference of the Earth
• What the Earth itself is made of (core, what's in the middle...)
• Age of the Earth
• Age of the Universe
• Going to the moon
• Quantum computers
• How life came to be
• How society evolved
• How morality evolved
• Black holes
• Where my missing sock went

If you really think some things are unknowable, then answer this question: What is the difference between something that is unknowable and something that is only currently unknown?Hint: To answer that - you'll have to know everything.If human history is any indication - we have an amazing ability of making "things we think are unknown" into "known things." We seem to do it all the time.
I don't see how anyone could see this amazing ability of ours and then think: "well, obviously there are things that are unknowable..." How can you possibly tell?And that's absolutely fine - for you.
Just as my ideas are absolutely fine - for me.And I get to say that finding the truth is my highest priority.
You can only say that finding the truth is extremely important to you, but not the most important - especially when the truth goes against what "makes sense" to you.And I know that you can clearly see how that's true when you read it.
And yet - it doesn't "make sense" to you at the same time - does it? It makes much more sense if you do hold the truth to be your highest priority as well - doesn't it?
Which is exactly the problem with leaning on things that "make sense" to you - our human brains are able to create the feeling of "making sense" for wholly contradictory positions that cannot possibly co-exist with each other. It takes effort and the willingness to deal with uncomfortable feelings of "this doesn't make sense at all..." in order to really get to the actual truth. That's why it took so many thousands of years for us to develop Science in the first place! Because Science, in and of itself, doesn't "make sense" to anyone at all!! Why do you think it's always been called blasphemous? But, the thing is - regardless of how much sense it makes - it is true. And, by using it, we can show that it's true.You can ignore it if it "makes sense" to you - but it won't go away. And you'll forever be limiting yourself from actually identifying what is, really, true.

And such a stance goes against the evidence of the things we know.We have millions and millions of scientific papers showing how such things have evolved naturally and do not require any pre-existing intelligence.
Not only that, all of the research and knowledge shows us that the idea of any pre-existing intelligence has no link to reality whatsoever. What is that makes you think the thought's "effect on the brain" isn't the same as "an actual thought?"
Because our best research shows that such observations are observing "actual thoughts."
Especially since we can induce actual thoughts by replicating these effects. Seems to me that you've found Love.
And we can link Love to reality - it's a feeling humans have.
We can identify that our brains and the processes in our bodies allow us to feel Love - even greater than what you've described here.
We can identify certain people (ie - psychopaths) that are incapable of these brain situations and processes in our bodies - and they are also incapable of feeling Love.What link to reality do you have for God?
What explanation (again, linked to reality) do you have for people like psychopaths that cannot find God/Love like everyone else can? And millions and millions of papers of our best-known-method for identifying the truth of reality don't just claim that you're wrong... they show that you're wrong. Nope.
I actually think it's a pretty shitty way to answer questions. We can't even know that we're 100% right.
But I do think it's our best-known-method to answer such questions. It's certainly waaaaay better than our personal perception or opinion or feelings or common sense or any other method you've touched on that's shown to be much, much worse.I actually wish and hope that someone will eventually identify a better method to answer questions - then I'll switch to that one. It just hasn't happened yet. Why would I accept something that's easily shown to be false?
I follow our best-known-method for identifying truth.
You do too. Except for certain things. For certain things, you reject our best-known-method for identifying truth and use an alternative method that's known to be wrong. Also easily shown to be false.This, actually, would be evidence for me to believe in God - if it could be shown that Christians "do better" in general than atheists and other religions. But, they don't, do they? Secular Societies Fare Better Than Religious Societies

• I wouldn't put too much stock in the flashy title on this one - it's more of an article than it is a study, so the title is intended to 'grab you'
• This one isn't so much showing theist vs atheist, it's more showing that more-religious areas "do worse" than less-religious areas. "Less religious" here doesn't mean "atheist" (although more atheists would be in those areas.) It means things like non-Bible-Belt states. Christianity is still the more popular religion, but not as prevalent and not as fundamental.
• The idea shown here is that moving towards secularity does not hurt society. And, in fact, it helps it.

This one is really interesting: Are believers happier than atheists?

• An actual study on theists vs atheists in Puerto Rico (think Bible-Belt or even worse for societies that prosecute atheists.)
• If interested, I highly recommend reading the Discussion section at the bottom. It reviews the Results (don't even need to read the Results section) as well as explaining and providing context.
• Results are, basically, that atheists and theists are pretty much the same as far as Quality of Life measurements go... and this is in areas where "being atheist" can get you savagely beaten or even killed.
• Both atheists and theists are measured as being "extremely high" in life satisfaction and psychologically flourishing. This is the part that completely shows you're wrong - being an atheist does impact one's thinking and the way they lead their lives - just as much as it does with Christianity.
• Christians scored slightly higher for life satisfaction
• Atheists scored slightly higher for psychological flourishing
• Again - this is in an area where being an atheist can cause extreme social discrimination leading to depression - imagine if that wasn't the case!

As the studies show - it's either equivalent or better.

I completely agree.
I see no other reason why someone would continue to insist on things after being shown that they are incorrect.
A persistent cycle of denial and "forgetting" about the contrary facts.Anyone who actually was secure in their beliefs wouldn't need to align themselves with current consensus on identifying the truth.
They would simply consider their beliefs "something that hasn't been shown yet" and accept that holding their beliefs is a higher priority to them then identifying the truth.

I'm skipping the first part of your reply, which only seems to repeat your same claims: that I'm ignoring something.But I'm not - we just don't find anything more. Which means your explanation/desire/need for "a why from a creator" is ineffective and unreasonable.
If we look for it, everywhere and forever - and don't even find anything hinting that it could possible be linked to reality in any way - it doesn't exist.This isn't ignoring it.
This is identifying that it doesn't exist.It just so happens that "things that don't exist" treat this reality exactly the same way as things that are ignored. So I can understand your confusion. Except, of course, things being ignored can be shown to exist. So - do that - and you'll have a point.The last part of your post gets into religious vs atheist for generosity and such. I'd like to discuss that further, as we haven't done so in this discussion yet: I completely agree with this.Your link, however, seems to make the same mistake most make when supporting the case that the religious are more generous.It seems to equate "generosity" with "giving money to non-profit organizations." When, well, this isn't the case, is it? There's more to being generous than just giving your money to non-profits - especially if one's self uses the services of those same non-profit orgnaizations.Check this out (2013): Are Religious People More Charitable, Generous, and Altruistic than Atheists?It starts off by acknowledging that American religious states give more to charity than non-religious areas and states.Then it's noted that "almost half of the charitable donations given by American households are to churches."

quote:

---

Donations to one’s own church are tax-deductible. But that does not make them charitable, in the older sense of the word. They are membership dues for a social club. They do not benefit the wider community, as would, for example, donations to the Red Cross.

---

Donating to one's own church - where one uses the church for personal social gatherings and community - is like donating/paying for one's one membership in any other social gathering/community setup - like a pickle ball team or card-playing group.And the additional science was a study where the took all sorts of religious people (including atheists) and gave them "imaginary money" to donate as they deemed fit. They were told that whoever they donated to, the money would triple for the recipient:Each and every select religious group (Christians, Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists) did in fact donate more than atheists in only one condition: when they were donating to a recipient who was from the same religion as their own.This, of course, is incredibly telling:

quote:

---

Religious institutions sometimes exploit and redirect empathic or generous impulses, converting them into a means of simply feeding the beast more dollars or adherents. My friend Kent recently received a mailer titled, “They’re Crying Out for Bibles. Please Help!” It told of one “dear elderly” woman in China who had been waiting for a Bible all her life. When Haiti was devastated by an earthquake, a different missionary organization used the disaster to raise funds and ship Haitians much needed solar-powered Bibles (instead of actual food/supplies that would actually help.)

​

At the time of the Asian Tsunami, a Seattle mega-church sympathized on its website and then advised parishioners to pray for those affected, give to their church-building ministries (aka conversion activities) in India, and give to Mars Hill Church. A hip newspaper published by the same church, advises that God want you to give first and foremost to your home congregation. The formula has worked beautifully for them.

---

The same study showed that when the recipient was non-religious or from some other religion - there was no notable difference in the amount of money provided to such recipients from any group. That is, all things being equal - we're all just as generous as each other.And the conclusion:

quote:

---

There are three points to be concluded from the research above:

• The argument that religious people are more generous than the non-religious is considerably weak — except perhaps for monetary donations to people of the same religion
• atheists, unlike religious people, do not discriminate when donating time, energy, or money
• atheists tend to give just as much non-monetary resources away as religious people, though there are instances where atheists are more charitable, such as how they may not give as much money to charities but are more willing to pay higher taxes in the US, which benefit the whole country — as opposed to donations which benefit a specific (i.e., religious) group.

---

And, another article as well: Atheists more generous than religious when helping others: study

quote:

---

A new study by the University of California, Berkeley, suggests atheists and agnostics are more willing to help other people than those who identify themselves as religious.

​

The reason for this difference, the study found, is because atheists are driven by emotions, such as compassion, as opposed to religious people, who may be more influenced by "doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns."

---

Being good for the sake of being good? Can't beat atheism!