22 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeDon't give me 50 different web sites to look at. Try splaining it to me. If you can't verbalize it to me I'm not interested.
I am sorry but the scientific method and peer review is specifically designed to weed out and
minimise any potential biases by design.
It is simply not true or valid to dismiss science and scientific endeavour as being just as biased
as the next world view.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Science_is_a_faith
http://wiki.ironchari ...[text shortened]... ip.tv/the-atheist-experience-tv-show/aron-ra-what-we-can-and-cannot-honestly-say-we-know-5016609
22 Apr 12
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeSo do you agree with the son of Charles Darwin using science as your moral guide? Major Leonard, Charles Darwin's son, trumpted the spread of eugenics and evolution. Major Darwin forewas the day when eugenics would become not only a grail, a substitute for religion, but a paramount duty whose tenants would presumably become enforceable. His son repeated his fathers admonition that, though the crudest workings of natural selection must be mitigated by "the spirit of civilization", society must encourage breeding among the best stock and prevent it among the worst "withoiut further delay".
Science is the reasonable constant testing of ideas to see if they are true that we can use as our solid foundation.
It has proven itself time and time again to be vastly superior to any and all other methods we have thought of or tried.
It IS the way we conquer individual biases and objectively know things.[/b]
Here we see the consequences of an atheistic worldview put into play. It is the elevation of "intelligence", the mating of "good" and "bad" stock, as well as enforcing the practice of mating good and bad stock, a form of statism in the works.
Originally posted by whodeyTake Creationism vs abiogenesis, for example. Neither one is observable or provable, yet we believe in one or the other.
I will try to splain it a little better. Take Creationism vs abiogenesis, for example. Neither one is observable or provable, yet we believe in one or the other.
So if you believe in Creationism, you tend to automatically lean toward other beliefs. Evolution, for example, claims to shed some light on our origins. Those not of faith tend to view this as greater the construction, the more investement we have in defending a particular position.
No, I would say you are wrong on both counts there. Take your latter claim for example: it is demonstrably false that everyone believes in one or the other. There are some, for example, who are simply agnostic when it comes to the question of the origins of biological life. I hate to keep pointing this out to you, but here goes again: you evinced an attitude of disgust or disdain toward those who call themselves 'agnostic' on certain topics, yet you have in no way, shape or form explained why that attitude is justified or appropriate, or why we should think these persons who call themselves agnostic are being in any way noetically irresponsible. At any rate, there is virtually no way in which a blanket attitude of disgust toward agnostic stances could be justified, since it is a matter of the evidential weight on case-by-case basis whether or not agnosticism is warranted for some given topic.
So if you believe in Creationism, you tend to automatically lean toward other beliefs. Evolution, for example, claims to shed some light on our origins. Those not of faith tend to view this as evidence that there is no God. In fact, the more we learn and reveal how things work, the less likely the need for God is since God is the essence of the mystery to life. Conversely, those of faith often feel threatened by it for the same reason. Add to that concrete interpretations of Genesis from both camps, and what you wind up with is a war between science and religion. In fact, I would say that the only people to reject evolution are those of faith, simply because they believe that it conflicts with their faith. I, for one, do not, but many do and are then motivated to attack evolution in a desperate attempt to defend their faith.
Please cut to the chase: what, precisely, constitutes the 'bias' that you think factors into the worldview of all persons? Of course, it may be that some persons are obviously biased and irresponsible in their deliberations or maybe just wildly confused on what counts as good evidence, etc, etc. So what? You made a blanket claim before that all persons are "biased" in their worldviews. So, it should follow that even the most stunning example of an objective person among us is still tainted with bias. So, please forget about examples of rabid creationists or evolutionists who are psyschologically wed to their cherished beliefs for no good reasons (for example). Do you think even the most dispassionate and unattached deliberations of humans may still be tainted with bias? Again, if you say yes, I do not necessarily disagree with you, depending on what the heck you mean. So, I am just trying to figure out what you mean when you say that we are all invariably biased.
Moving on, what of beleif about abortion or euthenasia? In fact, what makes human beings special in comparison to the animal kingdom? Why is it OK to kill and eat a cow but not a human being? For those of faith, humans are made in the image of God, thus have special significance and should be treated as such, animals are not. Thos not of faith, tend to view humans as glorified animals. The main difference being intelligence. So here we see those not of faith glorify intelligence as being the reason we honor life as where those of faith see human life as divinely sacred, no matter the intelligence level. So when confronted with the unborn, their intelligence level is subpar because it is still developing to those not of faith. The unborn can then be compared to a parasite and extinguished accordingly. Those of faith, however, see it very differently. That unborn life has been ordained by God and made in his image. To extinguish it would be a "sin" no matter how "stupid" it may be.
Gee, you know people so well. 🙄
I think you should quit pretending that all persons fit into your little cookie cutter caricatures. You're basically just a cynic who likes to stereotype everyone into your little strawman boxes. You should probably listen a bit more carefully when persons seriously debate such topics because your little synopses of the arguments for both sides fail to capture any of the actual substantive points or reasons therein. These arguments tend to be substantially more textured than you let on. For instance, the idea that you could start a thread and whittle down, to just a couple, the reasons why others do not believe in your God is pure chutzpah.
The entire rest of your post is just more "case in point".
23 Apr 12
3 edits
Originally posted by whodeyI do not disagree with a lot of what you say (for example, yes persons can be wed to their beliefs in a number of different ways, and worldviews can be self-sustaining in that they can color our evidential considerations in ways that are self-serving), but I take issue with the way you trivialize and stereotype actual arguments on both sides in ways that are radically inadequate at conveying any of the actual substance therein. If you do not want to engage in the practices of justification, the give and take of actual reasons for one's view, then fine. But some of us are actually interested in that stuff.
All I am saying is that we look at things through a skewed lense. For example, if you were a scientist studying our origins and you are a person of faith you might link such evidence with creation. However, if you are not a person of faith, such correlations would probably be absent. In fact, you may come up with other theories specifically to explain away the possibility that creationism had anything to do with it.
23 Apr 12
Originally posted by AgergGod is the source and creator of everything that we get our mathematics and
Because
for all n, ([10]_2^n + [10]_2^([10]_2 + n))/[10]_2^(n - 1) = [10]_{10}
hence god doesn't exist.
Respond
science from, therefore its very existence also testifies to the existence of God.
HalleluYah !!!
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
23 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyWe are allowed to look at things through a skewed lens, when we are not speaking as scientists.
All I am saying is that we look at things through a skewed lense. For example, if you were a scientist studying our origins and you are a person of faith you might link such evidence with creation. However, if you are not a person of faith, such correlations would probably be absent. In fact, you may come up with other theories specifically to explain away the possibility that creationism had anything to do with it.
If a scientist is studying our origins, and links such evidence with creation, he is not doing science. And if a scientist is studying our origins, and comes up with theories specifically to explain away the possibility that creationism has anything to do with it, he is not doing science.
As to the "however" statement in the middle: ("However, if you are not a person of faith, such correlations would probably be absent." ) -- this would be true of the scientist speaking as a scientist, no matter that he believed about creation, he could not bring those beliefs into his scientific work -- such correlations for or against creation would be absent from his scientific conclusions. He would not get any creation-oriented conclusions published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal that I have ever seen.
23 Apr 12
Originally posted by whodeyThis has nothing to do with atheism and very little to do with science, nor is it about using science as a moral guide.
So do you agree with the son of Charles Darwin using science as your moral guide?
Here we see the consequences of an atheistic worldview put into play.
24 Apr 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloWhat I mean is there are only two possible scenerios. Life came about by chance from infinite matter or life came about by a higher power. Granted, some may shrug their shoulders and say they don't know for sure. Then again, who is 100% sure? Even those of faith struggle with doubt at times. The only difference is that those of faith decide that their doubt is not sufficient to warrant abondoning their faith and perservere. As a result, I see little difference between the agnostic and atheist. I suppose the only difference is that the agnostic is more honest in their assessment.
No, I would say you are wrong on both counts there. Take your latter claim for example: it is demonstrably false that everyone believes in one or the other. There are some, for example, who are simply agnostic when it comes to the question of the origins of biological life. I hate to keep pointing this out to you, but here goes again: you evinced an attit ...[text shortened]... ht on case-by-case basis whether or not agnosticism is warranted for some given topic.
".[/b]
24 Apr 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloI will give you an example. I read an article in the Wall Street Journal about political leanings and IQ. A study was conducted by some conservative leaning individuals to assess if those on the left or right had a higher IQ. The topic at hand was whether liberals were economically challenged compared to their conservative rivals as they provided a hand full of questions to answer. It turned out that the majority of conservatives got most of the questions right and those on the left got them wrong. Their conclusion was that those on the left were simply not that bright when it came to money. However, the person who conducted the survey had a rare epiphany. He thought that perhaps his questions were skewed to be answered correctly by conservatives and not by liberals. So he created another test that asked questions like, "Is a dollar worth more to a poor person than to a rich person". The survey showed that liberals did much better on the test than their conservative rivals, simply because the questions were worded from a different point of view.
Please cut to the chase: what, precisely, constitutes the 'bias' that you think factors into the worldview of all persons? Of course, it may be that some persons are obviously biased and irresponsible in their deliberations or maybe just wildly confused on what counts as good evidence, etc, etc. So what? You made a blanket claim before that all persons ar ...[text shortened]... So, I am just trying to figure out what you mean when you say that we are all invariably biased.
Such is the power of a worldview and a belief system. I would say that the vast majority of us are simply unaware that we function this way. As for those who realize it, it should be humbling.
24 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloThat is not what this thread is about. This thread is about the reasons people provide in debates as to why they don't believe in God. There is a difference. I created this thread to get input. You are free to give yours. As for others, I believe about 2 were added, that is all.
For instance, the idea that you could start a thread and whittle down, to just a couple, the reasons why others do not believe in your God is pure chutzpah.
The entire rest of your post is just more "case in point".[/b]
24 Apr 12
Originally posted by JS357I did not mean to imply that a Christian scientist would try and use his findings to help justify their faith in their research. I was simply saying that a light bulb may go off in their research as where for others this would not be the case.
We are allowed to look at things through a skewed lens, when we are not speaking as scientists.
If a scientist is studying our origins, and links such evidence with creation, he is not doing science. And if a scientist is studying our origins, and comes up with theories specifically to explain away the possibility that creationism has anything to do ...[text shortened]... riented conclusions published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal that I have ever seen.
To pretend we can leave our beliefs at the door is pure folly. It is much wiser to be in tune with our bias so we can help keep it in check.
24 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt has nothing to do with science or athiesm? Why have you come to that conclusion?
This has nothing to do with atheism and very little to do with science, nor is it about using science as a moral guide.
Basically, we have the son of Charles Darwin who is arguing that mankind should pursue genetic engineering much like is done with livestock. How is that not science? We all know the benefits of breeding certain animals together to achieve certain desired results, so why not human beings? He then goes on to say that he hopes that this road will help replace religion as such genetic engineering may someday erradicate all the stupid folk who cling to their Bibles. How does this not have anything to do with atheism?
From my vantage point, this is a reoccuring theme with atheists. First is the worship of higher intelligence, as if a lack thereof is what hinders the human race. We then have those most "intellectually gifted" try to shepherd the less gifted to "help" them. Thus some form of statist intervention is usually in the works.
24 Apr 12
Originally posted by whodeyWhat I mean is there are only two possible scenerios. Life came about by chance from infinite matter or life came about by a higher power.
What I mean is there are only two possible scenerios. Life came about by chance from infinite matter or life came about by a higher power. Granted, some may shrug their shoulders and say they don't know for sure. Then again, who is 100% sure? Even those of faith struggle with doubt at times. The only difference is that those of faith decide that their do ...[text shortened]... theist. I suppose the only difference is that the agnostic is more honest in their assessment.
No, that's called a false dichotomy.
As a result, I see little difference between the agnostic and atheist.
Give over. You cannot see the difference between one who, based on the available evidence, endorses some positive conclusion in some direction and one who, based on the available evidence, does not think any positive conclusions in any directions are sufficiently warranted and thus withholds endorsement?
At any rate, now you're contradicting yourself. You clearly implied before that the agnostics drive you nuts in ways that atheists do not. Now, you say you see little difference between the two.
I suppose the only difference is that the agnostic is more honest in their assessment.
Contradicting yourself once again. If you think agnostics are more honest in their assessment, then why would you claim they drive you nuts? You have some problem with honest assessment? Try to figure out exactly what you intend to argue before continuing.
The reality is that different persons can be characteristically "honest" in their assessments and yet come to quite different conclusions.
If you want my honest take on it, you're just being a whiny little cynic. Based on your atrocious synopses of the arguments on both sides, you may want to look in a mirror and consider your own bias and lack of objectivity. Whatever dishonesty and bias agnostics and atheists bring to the table, I'm sure they have nothing on you.