dimreepr

Absolutely, @MSC is presenting 'the' teleological argument as if it's the only one that has any value. There's more than one reason for the invention of god/s by people.

No, accepting that you might be wrong, in spite of your biased certainty... I understand how much fun it is to have a good argument: Frankly this one was over on page 1, think of another question and we can have some more fun... 🙏

Who cares, if you want to find the truth you've got to be prepared for the 'ugly'...

Because they're mounted on a mountain of hate, the Donald is like the anti-Sisyphus, in that we think we sent him to hell, but he fucking loves pushing rocks up hill...

The stage doesn't assume the actor can act...

Come on guy's, it's way past it's bedtime, time to stop feeding it sugar treats and let it crash...

The science of bias is out there, in many thousands of studies; you do the rigor, and 'then' explain which bias the scientific process fails to address. There you go, bringing politics into the discussion; talk about muddying the waters... 😉

I rely on my intolocutor, to provide the context for my answers, I'm not very good at anticipating the direction of the conversation...

Do you mean the Wittgenstein quote? There is an inherent bias in how those in power see the world and how it affects those without, for instance, (I can't recall the name of the study) when 'problem' children are introduced to hardened criminal's as a means to frighten them into going straight, 70ish% of them ended up in prison even though they were terrified at the prospect. That seems relevant.

Indeed, and he's making a mockery of the first amendment, which in the cold light of day would be a specious mistake...

It's commentary on the subject, bias isn't a rational process, my context is inherent in the topic we're discussing and your response was symptomatic of the in group out group theory ; bc I was trying to explain to @Luc Turpin how science 'the process' tries to reduce the irrational bias that our dominant handedness produces, means were more likely to chose in that direction. "it’s still just commentary, doesn’t address the topic, and as far as I can see there was only one quote provided, which was on-topic, though did not constitute evidence." Evidence of what, that scientist's are immune to bias bc of the rational nature of the process they follow? There's studies that show that even when interviewing is ridigly structured, the time of day often dictates the type of interview conducted and the outcome.

Did you ever consider that I may have a point?

“When we can't think for ourselves, we can always quote” ― Ludwig Wittgenstein

Maybe not, but what you're also not, is thinking logically about the problem, which fundamentally comes down to the ultimate question, "who do we decide to kill?"; bc it's as sure as shit you ain't voting for you...

Yes, but your not doing science, your doing you doing assumption, based on your inate sense of the obvious... 😉 You're not even doing it badly, science that is...

I was going to say "it depends on whether we see it in time" but it really doesn't; why do I need to know? If we see it in time and can convince enough people of influence then perhaps 'we' can glory in 'our' victory; I haven't even got a backyard telescope, in order to be the plucky hero that tries to alert the authorities but is, either, snared by the red tape or dies trying. All I can do is vote angrily, when the fuckwits have screwed up our only chance... 😉

The point is, scientist's as human beings are as prone to biases as anyone else; however science is different to the bible, in that, when it's done properly it essentially removes the chance of bias effecting the results, our thinking on the output is still subject to human bias, but that is reduced to a minimum bc of the peer review process.

If I value something that is bound to increase, then that is pernicious and will always be true; if it's insidious then the value can only implode...

I know, it's like dad dancing; 'awkward' as funnybot explains...

It's the same coin, it's only insidious bc of the pernicious nature of value...😉

This is imagration problem writ large "they took our job's" . The otherside of that coin is, not enough people were clever enough to solve the problem... Well, that's karma for you... 🙄 Something trolls know very little about,,,

Fued is to strong a word to use for someone I'd love to share a beer with, while we shoot the, metaphorical, shit... 😇

As @iNow point's this is two different questions: 1/ The advantage of God's starts by trying to teach children the advantages of not taking more than they need, for instance, we need to chop down tree's to build our home's so we create a God of the tree's that we thank for providing our home's, but will be angered if we take a tree that we don't need and will strike down in some way that is fearful; when we forget that lesson we get Easter Island 2/ The advantages of religiosity, started because someone has a good idea that makes sense (at the time) and works to make thing's better for most people, it spreads because of that and the powerful teaching tool that's God. The problem we have now is that we 'know' there's no god of the tree's, is the, so called, sofistication of the 'science' of politics; the Trump's of this world are very good at making a specious idea seem like it's good and it spreads through all the children that know there's no bogie man to make them think twice.

Did you stop learning when your teacher stopped teaching? 3 thousand years of yesterday is but an excuse for tomorrow

Who said the world needs saving?