Strange

But the sparrow only exists in your mind...

How would you tell the difference?

I think it is much more likely that people just ignore the door being opened. They see a choice of two (count them: two) doors and hence assume a 50:50 chance. Certainly that is the view of everyone I have talked to about this.

So, what you are saying is that our experience that a choice of two items normally has a 50:50 chance is what makes most people think that is the answer? Well, that's a shocker.

People assume that because there are two doors there is a 50:50 chance. I'm not sure why you are making this so complicated.

It might have some relevance to the philosophy or psychology forums. I can't see any connection to physics.

That page also highlights some of the flaws in his reasoning. The tl;dr OP also sounds a lot like Solipsism. Which, being unfalsifiable, is of little interest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamia_(poem) But it is purely a matter of belief. You aren't going to change what some believes, or the sort of music they like, by pointing to the possible evolutionary origins. But you can't take that away from people who believe it. There is a lot more to religion than those people. Perhaps this is a US thing. Those people exist in such tiny numbers outside of the US (I have never, to my knowledge, met one) that it just isn't a major issue.

Many people (Keats, for example) would disagree with you.

I don't see how that is relevant. It seems just as irrational to say they shouldn't have those beliefs as to say someone shouldn't like a particular type of music. Of course, if someone says "this music tells me that general relativity is wrong" then I would have something to say about it.

I have still seen no evidence that Freud used anything approaching science. We get a lot of people presenting their ... ahem ... "personal theories" of physics on these forums. They make various claims about what science will discover in future (based on no science at all). If some of those guesses turn out to be correct, it doesn't show that their theory had any scientific basis, just that they were lucky. All that neuroscience's confirmation of some of Freud's ideas shows is that you can learn something about human nature by (informally) looking at the way people behave. Not exactly surprising. And not evidence of him "doing sceince". I'm quite sure that many other common ideas about the mind have been confirmed by science. And I am certain that, like most of Freud's ideas, many popular ideas will have been shown to be misconceptions. And I guess he would be disappointed to find that such studies, as well as those taking a scientific approach to psychology, show most of his ideas to be wrong. You think I should approve of his methods because of his conclusions? I disagree completely. I will criticise religious people who use poor logic to attack science. But I will also criticise scientific people who use poor logic to attack religion. For example, even if religion has an origin in evolution/survival that is no reason to criticise it. That is like saying people shouldn't like music or fall in love because they have an evolutionary basis.

I have never seen any evidence that he took a scientific approach. (What he claimed is irrelevant.) I don't see why. I have read of some excellent studies. Obviously, there is still some lower quality as work, but I see no reason why modern psychology shouldn't be considered a solid science. Lucky guesses. <shrug>

I'm not sure I agree. But perhaps you could explain why you think that. Although modern psychology is (usually) a science, the work of Freud and Jung was definitely not scientific.

That is a grossly dishonest article. There are religious websites that talk honestly about evolution, but that doesn't seem to be one of them.

Ditto. But ... Because the putative soul has nothing to do with evolution. Sure. Start your own religion. (And get rich.) Because that is what people believe. (Which is why science is irrelevant.) Agreed.

Because (I assume) divine intervention is the only explanation that makes sense (in a religious context) and arguments about evolution are therefore totally irrelevant. Simply repeating the same thing doesn't make it any more relevant.

There is no scientific sense in which we are "more advanced". Well, OK we are more advanced in some ways but every other organism is more advanced in other ways. Thank you. (I already know why [some] atheists create this conflict, because they are very vocal about it - as this thread shows.)

Ironically, it is an example of the fallacy of begging the question. Ironic because a common example is: "The Bible is true" "How do you know that?" "Because it is the word of God" "How do you know that?" "It says so in the Bible. So it must be true." And that is a straw man. No one (here) is saying that you have to consider there was, just that you can't prove there wasn't. (So if others think there was, you can't prove them wrong. You can only disagree.)

This is an argument from incredulity (which is entirely appropriate when it comes to matters of faith, unlike science) with post-hoc attempts at rationalisation. That is as silly as someone of faith trying to find objective evidence to support their beliefs. I don't struggle with any of them. They are all entirely irrelevant to me.

At last. You've got it. You can't answer that. You don't believe it happened. Who cares. But you can't use science to show that your belief is correct. How are you going to scientifically test for divine intervention? How are you going to objectively measure a "soul"? Science has NOTHING to say about that one way or the other. You are confusing your beliefs with science (and mistaking other peoples beliefs for something that science can disprove).

Well, duh. Obviously not through evolution. I struggle to see the logic in your argument. I now finding myself trying to defend something I don't believe in! If [someone believes that] God gave humans a special "thing" then the way humans acquired it was that God gave it to them. (Complicated, I know.) How does an argument about evolution have ANYTHING to do with that? Quite. Nothing to do with evolution, then. So why do you keep trying to drag an irrelevant argument into it. Can science detect a soul? No. So science has nothing to say about it. Did the soul evolve? No. So science has nothing to say about it. As this is not a conversation I am the least bit interested in. We can just leave it there. Sadly, I am not going to be able to have the conversation I was interested in ... Any attempt is always hijacked by a[nti]theists.

You make some very good points. But there are probably details that could be argued about. But it is all totally irrelevant. None of what you say has anything to do with science. Of course evolution says nothing about immortal souls or original sin. They are outside of the scope of science. There is no science that can show that an undetectable entity does not exist. I don't think they claim it has anything to do with evolution. So there is no conflict with evolutionary theory. And you can't use evolution as an argument against it. All you are doing is stating your disagreement with their beliefs and then insisting "because science". But there is no science of souls or sin.

I agree completely. It seems some people are unable to accept "don't know" as an argument and so will assume an unidentified object is aliens or an unexplained phenomenon must be supernatural. I'm not sure that is unique to religious people. There are a great many people who like science but hold onto a very distorted view of what science says about things. I'm sure there are plenty of non-religious people who think that science has identified Adma and Eve (because of stories about "mitochondrial Eve" etc.)

There is no scientific theory that describes the creation of the universe. There is speculation from the likes of Hawking, but I am not convinced that is any better (in terms of scientific support) than "goddidit". This may be a US vs rest of the world thing. Religious people who reject science, try to stop evolution being taught, etc. are almost unknown in Europe. (There is a tiny number of such people and they may get occasional press coverage but they have no real impact as far as I am aware.) As for vaccinations I have never heard of any connection between that and religion.

You may be able to prove that to yourself (and other atheists). And I assume you would do that using some sort of logical argument. I don't think you can do it with science. But that isn't really the point of the question.