Jump to content

People who believe in god are broken


Recommended Posts

That is experimental evidence for reproducible results, which obviously god isn't.

No argument here.

 

Science itself is not a description of reality, it is logical sequence of our understanding of our observations based on other observations. For example. a photon becomes emitted from an atom, then it hits your retina at which point it is absorbed and destroyed, then an electrical signal get's sent down your cells to your brain where your consciousness perceives the signal as a point of a location, your not actually observation the photon, your observation the translation of an electrical signal.

Furthermore, science is meant to deal only with speculation like religion. I didn't mean it is meant to separate religion, it just is a separate thing from religion and is not meant to interfere with it.

 

Science is a methodology to describe reality. It's the closest thing we have to describing reality without bias. It's not "meant" or "not meant" anything. It's a methodology.

 

When we try to describe reality without bias, we don't find God. When we try to describe God's existence without bias and in a way we can actually agree exists outside of people's heads, we fail. Evidence can't exist "just for those people", it must exist for everyone, otherwise it's subjective and biased.

 

Science is a methodology to get rid of as much bias as possible. When we use this methodology, we don't find any evidence for a god.

 

What does that mean?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Your evidence is good, their evidence is bad. Of course you will find the comparison flawed.   We have evidence that makes belief in the big bang reasonable to you. Such evidence for belief in God i

The signal in the clouds was intercepted, and the moo was dispatched!   Anyways, so, anyone who wonders why I was dispatched, I happen to know hebrew/aramaic, and spent 12 years studying the origina

Everyone on this site believes in something. If you are broken for believing in God then you are broken for believing in anything else that could turn out to be untrue.   Anyone here believe in str

Posted Images

No argument here.

 

 

 

Science is a methodology to describe reality. It's the closest thing we have to describing reality without bias. It's not "meant" or "not meant" anything. It's a methodology.

 

When we try to describe reality without bias, we don't find God. When we try to describe God's existence without bias and in a way we can actually agree exists outside of people's heads, we fail. Evidence can't exist "just for those people", it must exist for everyone, otherwise it's subjective and biased.

 

Science is a methodology to get rid of as much bias as possible. When we use this methodology, we don't find any evidence for a god.

 

What does that mean?

 

 

Well according to your description of science - "It's not "meant" or "not meant" anything", then it should not mean anything because we should not be giving "meaning" to anything when we use science. I have nothing against science, in fact I graduated with a degree in Physics. What I am wary of is the Hegemony of science. We should be careful what to throw and what to keep in the words of the great Kenny Rogers. I just don't think we should trash religion just like that yet. We need to study it a little bit more and be open to other avenues of thinking which is the hallmark of science. The hegemony of science can easily become just like the hegemony of the inquisitors and in some cases the hegemony of Wall Street that led to the financial crisis. We need to tread lightly, some things are still worth keeping. Science is not Everything yet, it is still a part of Everything.

Edited by kraus18
Link to post
Share on other sites

"What's in reality" = "What's real" = "What's existing".

The scientific method tests that.

We find no god when we test it.

 

Seems self explanatory to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"What's in reality" = "What's real" = "What's existing".

The scientific method tests that.

We find no god when we test it.

 

Seems self explanatory to me.

 

Self explanatory. Flawless in fact as proven time and again. What about this logic?

 

"Belief in things that cannot be sensed" = "Belief in not real" = "Broken"

 

Can the scientific method validate it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Self explanatory. Flawless in fact as proven time and again. What about this logic?

 

"Belief in things that cannot be sensed" = "Belief in not real" = "Broken"

 

Can the scientific method validate it?

 

The logic here breaks because the equal signs can be argued. Also, "Belief in things that cannot be sensed" isn't quite accurate. It's more "belief in things outside reality" = "belief in not real".

 

Then the "Broken" is something I might disagree with, so I am not sure the logic is sound even just on the basis of that. However, the intent is clear. I would phrase it as the *claims* are broken, or the *argument* is broken, rather than the person is broken (which is an ad-hom, it suggests that there's nothing much to be done, and depending on the situation, not necessarily true).

 

Well according to your description of science - "It's not "meant" or "not meant" anything", then it should not mean anything because we should not be giving "meaning" to anything when we use science. I have nothing against science, in fact I graduated with a degree in Physics. What I am wary of is the Hegemony of science. We should be careful what to throw and what to keep in the words of the great Kenny Rogers. I just don't think we should trash religion just like that yet. We need to study it a little bit more and be open to other avenues of thinking which is the hallmark of science. The hegemony of science can easily become just like the hegemony of the inquisitors and in some cases the hegemony of Wall Street that led to the financial crisis. We need to tread lightly, some things are still worth keeping. Science is not Everything yet, it is still a part of Everything.

 

By the way, this might not have been clear from my recent posts (Though I have explained it in the past a couple of times) so for the sake of clarity, let me say this:

 

I don't think people who believe in religion are broken, and I believe people have the right to believe whatever they want. I also love philosophy, and I think science can benefit a *lot* from philosophical debates that challenge the way we think.

 

I studied the old testament for 12 years from a secular point of view, and am a cultural jew. I know religion, and I like the concept as a cultural impact. I think the bible is incredibly interesting, and I get angry when religious folk demand it only belongs to them because of religion. The fact is that it's a historical book (not necessarily with accurate history) and I think it has great stories as well as completely horrific ones. We can learn a lot from it, especially about how to analyze texts and contextual linguistics.

 

That said, the one thing I can't really understand is when religious arguments delve into science, insisting that God can be proven to exist, or that God has evidence of existence (usually this is accompanied by "how can you NOT believe!" type of arguments) but then when the "evidence" are scrutinized (which is a SCIENTIFIC METHOD! we do this to scientific evidence as well as any other evidence, on purpose, by design of the method) then suddenly the method is unsuitable, and religion is outside the realm of science.

 

... but there are evidence! and... and they're clearly true and how can you not believe it! oh, but they don't go by science and they're outside reality, and what does science do in there to begin with!

 

See my point?

 

Consistency people. You don't want to get into scientific rigor, don't get into it. But don't go all in and then complain when you fail.

 

I don't quite understand why there's this insistence to forcefully fit religion into the definitions of reality. Why not admitting it's a philosophical mythical belief that one owns because he *can* because we live in a free society where anyone can believe whatever they want to.

 

But if the argument goes INTO science, then you have to be aware you will be scrutinized in the scientific method like ANY other claim. Can't eat the cake and leave it whole.

 

That was my point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The logic here breaks because the equal signs can be argued. Also, "Belief in things that cannot be sensed" isn't quite accurate. It's more "belief in things outside reality" = "belief in not real".

 

Then the "Broken" is something I might disagree with, so I am not sure the logic is sound even just on the basis of that. However, the intent is clear. I would phrase it as the *claims* are broken, or the *argument* is broken, rather than the person is broken (which is an ad-hom, it suggests that there's nothing much to be done, and depending on the situation, not necessarily true).

 

I agree with you and you might as well add that most people who believe in things that are outside of reality are in mental institutions but the fact that a lot of people who exist today day who are religious, hold political eminence is something that we should ponder about. While belief in things outside of reality can be said as a scientifically "broken" argument if not unsound argument, it is only good on paper. I can say that "forms" of thinking/feeling/experiencing have evolved and are continued to evolve. I cannot say that the dodo was broken because it became extinct. It was simply another instance of existence at one point in time. Circumstances have caused it to be extinct and if circumstances should allow for religious thinking to be extinct then that will be its uneventful fate. However, like I said in my previous post, the realm of belief in God or things unreal is a realm of the Emotions and I would really love to point Damasio's book "Descartes' Error." regarding this. Playing with emotions and controlling them is still reality for me. History has shown how irrational thinking has moved masses to action or inaction in that regard and the emotions that faith in God has evoked has effectively moved more people to action and work than say explaining(using loudspeakers at that) the workings of the human heart and the human brain in in times of distress. So is irrational thinking broken? In paper maybe, but there is more to Reality so far than paper.

 

I agree with you and you might as well add that most people who believe in things that are outside of reality are in mental institutions but the fact that a lot of people who exist today day who are religious, hold political eminence is something that we should ponder about. While belief in things outside of reality can be said as a scientifically "broken" argument if not unsound argument, it is only good on paper. I can say that "forms" of thinking/feeling/experiencing have evolved and are continued to evolve. I cannot say that the dodo was broken because it became extinct. It was simply another instance of existence at one point in time. Circumstances have caused it to be extinct and if circumstances should allow for religious thinking to be extinct then that will be its uneventful fate. However, like I said in my previous post, the realm of belief in God or things unreal is a realm of the Emotions and I would really love to point Damasio's book "Descartes' Error." regarding this. Playing with emotions and controlling them is still reality for me. History has shown how irrational thinking has moved masses to action or inaction in that regard and the emotions that faith in God has evoked has effectively moved more people to action and work than say explaining(using loudspeakers at that) the workings of the human heart and the human brain in in times of distress. So is irrational thinking broken? In paper maybe, but there is more to Reality so far than paper.

 

Yes. Well I was attacking the topic "People who believe in God are broken." If it had been "Arguments about Belief in God are Broken." then I would have been INCONSISTENT. So I can safely say, I was consistent. I stayed within the bounds of the statement "People who believe in God are broken."

Link to post
Share on other sites

from Wiki "Recapitulation Theory"

 

The theory of recapitulation, also called the biogenetic law or embryological parallelism—and often expressed as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"—is a disproven biological hypothesis that in developing from embryo to adult, animals go through stages resembling or representing successive stages in the evolution of their remote ancestors. With different formulations, such ideas have been applied and extended to several fields and areas, including the origin of language, biology, cognition and mental activities,[1] anthropology,[2] education theory[3] and developmental psychology.[4] While some examples of embryonic stages show that superficial features of ancestral organisms exist, the theory of recapitulation itself has been completely disproven within the field of biology.[5][6][7] By contrast, there is no consensus against its validity outside of biology; recapitulation theory is still considered plausible and applied by some researchers in fields like Behavioral Development,[8] the study of the origin of language,[9] and others.

 

Not unlikey that there would be parallels seen, either overt and caused, or merely just "something like", between the development of a single human's consciousness, understanding and motivations, and that of a family's, club's, political group's, religion's, or humanity in general. You after all, cannot have the emergent characteristics of the flock activity, without the birds.

 

Maybe not studyable in a purely scientific cause and effect way, but to some degree, I think you have to give your personal characteristics, both good and bad to the greater organism...and take some of your personal characteristics from the greater organism.

 

To Mooey's question of "What does it tell you" when you look for God in Reality and do not find such?" I would guess that maybe that only happens when you are taking its (God's) perspective.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

"no snowflake feels responsible for the avalanche"

 

but may feel somewhat proud of the beautiful snow scene

 

rereading this story actually choked me up, (in the context of this discussion)

used here without permission

 

Footprints in the Sand

 

One night I dreamed I was walking along the beach with the Lord.

Many scenes from my life flashed across the sky.

In each scene I noticed footprints in the sand.

Sometimes there were two sets of footprints,

other times there was one only.

This bothered me because I noticed that during the low periods of my life,

when I was suffering from anguish,

sorrow or defeat,

I could see only one set of footprints,

so I said to the Lord,

“You promised me Lord,

that if I followed you,

you would walk with me always.

But I have noticed that during the most trying periods of my life

there has only been one set of footprints in the sand.

Why, when I needed you most, have you not been there for me?”

The Lord replied,

“The years when you have seen only one set of footprints,

my child, is when I carried you.”

 

Mary Stevenson

© 1984 and used here with permission. The official website address is http://www.footprints-inthe-sand.com

 

Perhaps my point is, if you look behind you, and see only one set of footprints, the only explanation is that you are carrying yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No argument here.

 

 

 

Science is a methodology to describe reality. It's the closest thing we have to describing reality without bias. It's not "meant" or "not meant" anything. It's a methodology.

 

When we try to describe reality without bias, we don't find God. When we try to describe God's existence without bias and in a way we can actually agree exists outside of people's heads, we fail. Evidence can't exist "just for those people", it must exist for everyone, otherwise it's subjective and biased.

 

Science is a methodology to get rid of as much bias as possible. When we use this methodology, we don't find any evidence for a god.

 

What does that mean?

 

No, science is a methodology to describe our observations, not reality, that is why god is separate from it, because we cannot observe and test god regardless of if it exists in reality. We can't even prove black holes because we cannot observe them, same with individual quarks.

Edited by questionposter
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, science is a methodology to describe our observations, not reality, that is why god is separate from it, because we cannot observe and test god regardless of if it exists in reality.

Which is part of why it is so strange for people to accept the god proposition as if it were unquestionably true.

 


 

The question isn't if you can find logic, the question is how hard you need to work to make the logic work for your chosen answer.

 

At some point, if it requires extra particular interpretation and extra particular interpretations again and again, logic might dictate it may be the less logical answer.

 

Don't you agree? Otherwise, why not just admitting it has nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with faith...

What you're trying to do is use science while not using science. That doesn't work.

 

If you don't want to use the system of science, why use terminology used and defined by the scientific methodology? Use another word or another terminology, it may reduce the amount of dissent from science-minded people who use "evidence" and "facts" according to the methodology they were created for.

 

I don't quite understand the duality here. On one hand it seems like many religious people claim "it requires faith" and on the other insist discussing such faith (leap or not) in the context of science... Why not just admitting it doesn't require evidence, just faith, and be done with it. Everyone has a right to believe and have faith in whatever they want, so why insist on using science not in the way it was created to be used to insist the faith is scientific, and then reject science when it doesn't work...

The evidence for the existence of god is, so far, not evidence. Not in the context physics, biology and chemistry uses it ("empirical" science) and not in the context that history uses it (used to infer the conclusion).

 

Evidence does not lose its meaning in different systems. It has the same meaning. If you mean to say something other than evidence, use another word.

My sole problem is with the insistence to use scientific terminology when it suits the argument and then reject it when it stops working.

There are no facts that support God's existence, everything is either philosophical or dependent on specific written accounts that are on their own untrustworthy.

 

I still think these arguments misuse the word "Evidence" but even if they have a right to misuse it, I am not quite sure what the conclusion should be. If evidence is derived from empirical (trustworthy) observation and experimentation, and there are no direct nor indirect evidence for god, then why are we even usig the word to begin with?

 

What is so horrible in admitting that a belief in God (any god) is separate from the need of evidence? Why insisting that there are evidence when there are no realistic ones, and then continue to insist that we actually shouldn't really view this in the context of science...

 

If it's not in the context of science, then why even argue that it has strong evidence...

That said, the one thing I can't really understand is when religious arguments delve into science, insisting that God can be proven to exist, or that God has evidence of existence (usually this is accompanied by "how can you NOT believe!" type of arguments) but then when the "evidence" are scrutinized (which is a SCIENTIFIC METHOD! we do this to scientific evidence as well as any other evidence, on purpose, by design of the method) then suddenly the method is unsuitable, and religion is outside the realm of science.

 

... but there are evidence! and... and they're clearly true and how can you not believe it! oh, but they don't go by science and they're outside reality, and what does science do in there to begin with!

 

See my point?

 

Consistency people. You don't want to get into scientific rigor, don't get into it. But don't go all in and then complain when you fail.

 

I don't quite understand why there's this insistence to forcefully fit religion into the definitions of reality. Why not admitting it's a philosophical mythical belief that one owns because he *can* because we live in a free society where anyone can believe whatever they want to.

 

But if the argument goes INTO science, then you have to be aware you will be scrutinized in the scientific method like ANY other claim. Can't eat the cake and leave it whole.

You've been driving at this point for a while now, and nobody has offered you a reasonable response. I will hazard a guess, conceding up front that my viewpoint on the topic is a bit biased. That said, I think I'm close to being correct.

 

They want to use science because even believers concede that claims must be tested against reality before they deserve respect and acceptance. They do this themselves in nearly all other aspects of their lives. They require good reason to accept something as true. The challenge is they suspend this demand when it comes to their own belief in their own personal god(s).

 

What happens then is people like you and me... folks who tend to appreciate consistency, intellectual/academic integrity, rigor and evidence... we dismiss their claims. We stipulate that they have the right to believe whatever they want, but we challenge the veracity of the belief itself. We share openly that we find it to be uncompelling, and request more before we ourselves accept the claim as true.

 

The believer, however, wants their belief to be accepted by others. It bothers them when others dismiss their beliefs as silly, especially when they respect or enjoy the company of that person who thinks differently. We humans are a social species and we deeply and profoundly desire the "group" around us to agree with us on important topics and subjects of study. We are genetically predisposed to prefer alignment with the pack as opposed to independence and separate thinking. The lone wolf didn't frequently survive, and it's embedded in us to avoid ostracization of this type.

 

The conversations and exchanges continue, and fairly regularly the believer sees that their faith alone is not enough to convince others. They hear the continuing requests for evidence, the demands for consistency, the focus on rigor and scrutiny... and they understand that faith isn't enough for those who don't already agree with them... but despite the commonality and popularity their belief already enjoys they still want others like you and me to also agree with them and accept their belief is valid. They campaign for their belief, but the language of their campaign fails to bring people to their side. They are met with the stoney wall of scientific scrutiny and requirements at nearly every turn.

 

So, what do they do instead? They try to use the language of their critics. They alter their message in hopes of making it more palatable to those who dismiss them. They try to engage with the terminology of science. So strong is their belief that they try to pass god through the filter of the scientific methodology to satisfy the demands of those who reject their belief... Like trying to hammer a square peg through a round hole... and the attempts generally fail.

 

The believer is often met with comparisons of their deity to unicorns and leprechauns, or other ancient human mythological figures like Thor, Zeus, Apollo, Poseidon, etc... The disbelieving audience sees no functional difference between the claim in their god(s) with the claims for other more rejected god(s), and the believer knows they will never receive that acceptance they so desire until they manage to frame the discussion in such a way that their personally preferred version of god happens to surpass that threshold of evidence... Until they manage to adequately meet the scientific burden of proof... Until they are able to provide evidence in the scientific sense... but consistently and for millenia that evidence has been absent. Their arguments have always fallen back to faith alone, and so their attempts to convince their more rational and reasonable detractors continue to fail.

 

They know all they have is faith.

The people they are most trying to convince won't accept faith alone as a good enough to accept the extraordinary claim of god(s) to be true.

 

I propose that this is the root answer to the question you've been asking. In their heart of hearts, even they know that faith alone is insufficient, despite the years of indoctrination they've received trying to teach them precisely the opposite.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, science is a methodology to describe our observations, not reality, that is why god is separate from it, because we cannot observe and test god regardless of if it exists in reality. We can't even prove black holes because we cannot observe them, same with individual quarks.

 

Science is a methodology to explain reality. It may have instances where it needs improvement, but it is designed to describe how reality works. It includes more than "just" "observations".

 

If it was strictly about observations, we'd have much less science going on. We're concentrating on explaining how things work in reality, making predictions and tying everything up to *explain* the way things work. There are a whole bunch of things we can't observe and yet science still explains, or attempts to (mostly successfully). In reality. It's how reality works. That's what science is about.

 

I don't mean offense here, but I think you might want to take a science 101 or philosophy of science / history of science class, it can shed some light on how science actually works in relation to explaining our reality.

 

~mooey

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, science is a methodology to describe our observations, not reality, that is why god is separate from it, because we cannot observe and test god regardless of if it exists in reality.

 

Then any god is forever outside of reason and making shit up is not an acceptable substitute for science.

 

I don't mean offense here, but I think you might want to take a science 101 or philosophy of science / history of science class, it can shed some light on how science actually works in relation to explaining our reality.

 

<philosopher hat>

Indeed

</philosopher hat>

Link to post
Share on other sites

You've been driving at this point for a while now, and nobody has offered you a reasonable response. I will hazard a guess, conceding up front that my viewpoint on the topic is a bit biased. That said, I think I'm close to being correct.

 

They want to use science because even believers concede that claims must be tested against reality before they deserve respect and acceptance. They do this themselves in nearly all other aspects of their lives. They require good reason to accept something as true. The challenge is they suspend this demand when it comes to their own belief in their own personal god(s).

That's the main problem here in these discussions. They want to eat the cake and leave it whole. I get the intent, but they either need to remain consistent and when it fails let it go, or drop it completely and just remain with "It's my belief and I don't care if it goes by reality".

 

Also, and I am pretty sure you may agree with me on this, but the entire idea of science is to scrutinize claims. The whole "attitude" of "oh no you can't scrutinize my belief!" is screwed up, especially if a person insists to introduce their belief in the context of science.

 

If you go into the game, get ready to play by the rules.

 

Oh, and don't blame us when the rules fail you, theists. Please. It's annoying. And disrespectful.

 

Here's a great quote from Harry Potter (Hermione rules btw):

564938_300329640049503_100002174093789_694714_1162699699_n.jpg

What happens then is people like you and me... folks who tend to appreciate consistency, intellectual/academic integrity, rigor and evidence... we dismiss their claims. We stipulate that they have the right to believe whatever they want, but we challenge the veracity of the belief itself. We share openly that we find it to be uncompelling, and request more before we ourselves accept the claim as true.

 

I agree with you.

 

The only thing I'd put as a small caviat is that I don't think we dismiss the claims -- it sounds like we're not even considering them. We do consider. We just can't accept them without evidence, and there is no evidence.

 

A claim was raised, a claim was examined, the claim was shown to not work. Usually, the case closes at this point until new evidence is introduced.

Seems this fails in theistic claims. When it does, theists really need to recognize this and how really awkward that is.

 

The believer, however, wants their belief to be accepted by others. It bothers them when others dismiss their beliefs as silly, especially when they respect or enjoy the company of that person who thinks differently. We humans are a social species and we deeply and profoundly desire the "group" around us to agree with us on important topics and subjects of study. We are genetically predisposed to prefer alignment with the pack as opposed to independence and separate thinking. The lone wolf didn't frequently survive, and it's embedded in us to avoid ostracization of this type.

 

I agree again, but I think the difference between us is that I am a bit more patient in terms of understanding where they come from. Maybe because I've been there myself, and know ow that feels.

 

So, I think I told this story before but here it is again:

 

I have always been a skeptical person, and I have always been interested in science. However, throughout most of my youth (up to my twenties or so, actually) I believed in really weird crap. I was always either an agnostic or an atheist, but that was about God. Everything else? Not so much.

 

I believed it's possible aliens visited us in the past and helped build the pyramids.

I believed human beings have spiritual energies you can manipulate using deep meditation, reiki, and outer-body experience. In fact, I practiced reiki on my friends and I was considered to be quite good at it.

I believed there are questions scientists don't want answered because they're stuck in an ivory tower and don't want their world rattled.

I believed in a lot of other really weird crap I am too embarassed to even share (yeah, worse than the above list, trust me)

 

The irony though is that I never considered either one of those as "beliefs"; I thought they were pretty solidly established. See, I *felt* my energies, and my friends *felt* my energies transfer to them when I did reiki. How could you fake that?! You can't! Right? ... I mean.. right?...

 

The issue is that it's not like I didn't ask questions -- because I did, and I tested my own "powers" and my own beliefs, and read quite a LOT about everything -- it was that I had the wrong tools to answer these questions.

 

Here's an example: One day I wanted to really test the concept of my "energies" and reiki, etc. All my friends were always saying how "powerful" I am and how good I am in relaxation techniques and reiki, etc, and it was great on my ego (yep). But I had a couple of doubts about it, so I wanted to test.

 

One day I asked my friend (who was a believer) to help me test it. We sat at two ends of the table and held hands with our eyes closed. The idea was that I will "deliver" my energies to some part of his body without telling him which part, and then he will tell me if he felt anything. If he gets it wrong, then maybe there's nothing to this thing, but if he gets it right, maybe there is. I even planned to repeat the experiment a couple of times to see if it wasn't just a fluke.

 

I had the right sort of idea. I was skeptical. I tried to test things, yes? no one could tell me I was being completely credulous!

 

Not only that, but I wanted to trick the guy in front of me, to see if it really is true, so I concentrated on his left arm, but I "aimed" my energies to his right arm through his chest. The idea was to try and see if he gets it right.

 

Well, two minutes in, when I'm visualizing energies flowing onto his chest (but squeezing his arm and looking at his arm in case he opens his eyes) -- he starts gasping. Needless to say I was mortified. When I asked what happened, he told me he suddenly felt his chest getting really warm.

 

.... I concluded I am dangerous.

 

When I asked my science friend about this, she laughed at me. You know what I thought? I thought she's so arrogant and stuck in her methodology and math and crap, that she's not even considering anything outside her realm of comfort, etc etc etc. It took me a long while to think I might want to actually DO science.

 

Today, I look back at this with some amusement (mixed with slight shame, honestly) -- the ideas I had were okay, but the execution was completely lacking, and hence my conclusion was way out there.

 

 

That's how I see many believers (no matter what they believe). Many of them THINK they have the right tools, but they don't realize that it's not the right tools, and hence the conclusions they are making are ridiculous.

 

But they don't notice it, see what I mean? I don't blame them, especially with the way our society treats education for critical thinking. It's almost nonexistent, we don't give the right tools to people so how can we blame them for not using the right tools?

 

that's the reason why I dislike the title of this thread. I agree in principle that the arguments are broken, and that makes the belief outside reality which, I guess, we could define as "being broken", but I really think that it's not helping anything, and I don't see believers as innately broken.

 

I think their way of thinking might be broken, but that's not to say THEY are broken. Do you see the distinction? I think it's important not just for the sake of "politeness" but also because it shifts the focus of the argument around....

 

~mooey

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Evidence, however, are the same meaning. Since a witness account isn't factual, it's not evidence. The fact the language is abused doesn't mean it's right.

 

 

You must be joking to state that language is abused because it doesn't conform to your idea of it. Continually asserting that evidence must conform to the scientific idea of evidence is a abuse of language not the other way around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence.

 

From Wikipedia:

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

From Merriam Webster:

 

Definition of EVIDENCE

 

1

a : an outward sign : indication

b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter

2

: one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices

http://www.merriam-w...ionary/evidence

 

It appears Evidence is about a *truth*, about a fact. I said the legal system abuses this word because the way the legal system works (especially in the US legal system), legal evidence "depend" on perspective and the rhetoric used by the lawyer. It's not necessarily a truth, but rather a presentation of some fact the lawyer tries to use to either show guilt or non-guilt.

 

Evidence are then *examined* and scrutinized. If they stand the test of scrutiny, we can say they're evidence, if they fail, they fail.

 

That doesn't change the fact that evidence demonstrates a truth.

 

 

 

That said, evidence is somethign that is proposed and then examined. It remains evidence if it "passes" the test, and fails if it doesn't. "Here's evidence that rob murered bob" can either remain evidence for the matter because no one could refute it, or can change to non-evidence when someone refuted it.

 

Same goes to science. "Here's an evidence for the big bang" remains evidence until someone refutes it. "Here's evidence for god" was evidence until it was refuted. If you can come up with an evidence for God that cannot be refuted, we could start discussing the merits of the God theory.

 

So far, attempts at evidence were presented, and all failed scrutiny.

 

~mooey

Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

From Merriam Webster:

 

http://www.merriam-w...ionary/evidence

 

It appears Evidence is about a *truth*, about a fact. I said the legal system abuses this word because the way the legal system works (especially in the US legal system), legal evidence "depend" on perspective and the rhetoric used by the lawyer. It's not necessarily a truth, but rather a presentation of some fact the lawyer tries to use to either show guilt or non-guilt.

 

Evidence are then *examined* and scrutinized. If they stand the test of scrutiny, we can say they're evidence, if they fail, they fail.

 

That doesn't change the fact that evidence demonstrates a truth.

 

 

 

That said, evidence is somethign that is proposed and then examined. It remains evidence if it "passes" the test, and fails if it doesn't. "Here's evidence that rob murered bob" can either remain evidence for the matter because no one could refute it, or can change to non-evidence when someone refuted it.

 

Same goes to science. "Here's an evidence for the big bang" remains evidence until someone refutes it. "Here's evidence for god" was evidence until it was refuted. If you can come up with an evidence for God that cannot be refuted, we could start discussing the merits of the God theory.

 

So far, attempts at evidence were presented, and all failed scrutiny.

 

~mooey

 

If an event of possible importance happened in history, we have to make do with what is available to us. The evidence being weak or strong doesn't change the actual event, but only our possible understanding of the event. If the Bible is true and the events occurred as stated in it, then those that refuse to try and make sense of it are only denying themselves understanding. I have no need to convince anyone, we are all responsible for our own actions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If an event of possible importance happened in history, we have to make do with what is available to us. The evidence being weak or strong doesn't change the actual event, but only our possible understanding of the event. If the Bible is true and the events occurred as stated in it, then those that refuse to try and make sense of it are only denying themselves understanding. I have no need to convince anyone, we are all responsible for our own actions.

 

Sure. But then we don't infer the existence of a mythical creature based on an event in the past, do we? If we have 5 accounts of the same event telling us how a group of people met to worship the sun god and that day there was an eclipse, then we can assume the event actually happened, but to assume the sun god exists is a bit of a leap, wouldn't you say?

 

As Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

Not all claims are equal. "Yesterday, I went to lunch" is not equal in the range of needing evidence with the claim that "Yesterday, I was abducted by aliens". Don't you agree?

 

To prove the first, I can simply give you a receipt, and if you insist, we can talk to some people in the coffee shop. It's probably enough for that type of claim because you know that coffee shops exist, that they exist closeby to me, that i go to them occasionally, that it's not all that insane that I would go to one, etc.

 

But the second claim is a bit more out there, because it requires more assumptions, so it also requires a lot more scrutiny. You will likely not be convinced with the same amount (or type) or evidence that I could produce for the first claim, and I wouldn't blame you.

 

What I think people tend to miss here, is that the claim that God exists is very similar to the claim that Zeus exists, and the claim that dragons exist.

 

They all have multiple accounts telling events and adventures about them, from multiple people. It may seem to you that God is such a logical answer, but I *really* honestly truly do not see the difference.

 

If I dismiss the concept of Zeus, why not do the same to God if they share the same type of evidence and the same type of plausibility to people who didn't grow up in the belief.

 

~mooey

Link to post
Share on other sites

If an event of possible importance happened in history, we have to make do with what is available to us. The evidence being weak or strong doesn't change the actual event, but only our possible understanding of the event. If the Bible is true and the events occurred as stated in it, then those that refuse to try and make sense of it are only denying themselves understanding. I have no need to convince anyone, we are all responsible for our own actions.

 

 

"If" is a very big word in that context....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Same goes to science. "Here's an evidence for the big bang" remains evidence until someone refutes it. "Here's evidence for god" was evidence until it was refuted. If you can come up with an evidence for God that cannot be refuted, we could start discussing the merits of the God theory.

 

So far, attempts at evidence were presented, and all failed scrutiny.

 

~mooey

How do you refute evidence of a miracle, that a person was healed by prayer 100 years ago, as documented by the Vatican?

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you refute evidence of a miracle, that a person was healed by prayer 100 years ago, as documented by the Vatican?

 

You don't refer to it as evidence at all to begin with... because it's not evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is part of why it is so strange for people to accept the god proposition as if it were unquestionably true.

 

 

Strange to you perhaps because you haven't made the psychological connections to religion as other people have. When mono-theists formally pray to god, in my experience, they often describe a feeling of calmness and zen as a way of feeling connected to god. Logically I don't know what the feeling actually arises from, and I don't know if scientists know, so there's room for believing other things.

 

Then any god is forever outside of reason and making shit up is not an acceptable substitute for science.

I don't think I ever said its a substitute for science, but this is why science can't prove it wrong.

Edited by questionposter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange to you perhaps because you haven't made the psychological connections to religion as other people have. When mono-theists formally pray to god, in my experience, they often describe a feeling of calmness and zen as a way of feeling connected to god. Logically I don't know what the feeling actually arises from, and I don't know if scientists know, so there's room for believing other things.

 

I get the same feeling when I meditate, and yet I don't attach any external omnipotent invisible fatherly figure to it.

 

I don't think I ever said its a substitute for science, but this is why science can't prove it wrong.

 

Doesn't mean it's right.

 

"Science" can't prove the unicorn wrong, or Zeus wrong. Does that mean you're going to Zeus temple tomorrow with a rainbow-colored saddle?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the same feeling when I meditate, and yet I don't attach any external omnipotent invisible fatherly figure to it.

I don't either, but then again, I'm not religious.

"Science" can't prove the unicorn wrong, or Zeus wrong. Does that mean you're going to Zeus temple tomorrow with a rainbow-colored saddle?

 

Why should the number of believers determine if something is actually real? And besides, the reason people believe in it is because it can't be proven wrong. If it could, then 99% of the population wouldn't believe in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should the number of believers determine if something is actually real? And besides, the reason people believe in it is because it can't be proven wrong. If it could, then 99% of the population wouldn't believe in it.

 

Who said anything about numbers?

 

 

 

 

.... your logic is weird, man. There are tons of weird wrong things that 99% of the population believes in, as they have throughout history. You start by complaining about numbers and then state a completely odd statement about the number games.

 

If this is a number game, my friend, you need to go Muslim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know it is not evidence?

 

Because it doesn't discuss a fact, zapatos.

 

The burden of proof is on the claimant, isn't it? If it's "neither here nor there", it's not a fact, and it's not evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.