Side-effects of Faith

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
An interesting comment about the side-effects of "faith" was made by Bruce Bartlett in an interview with Bill Moyers that I saw recently.

The following puts the comment in context. You can watch the interview in its entirety (approx. 25 mins.)
[quote]Bill Moyers talks with conservative economist Bruce Bartlett, who wrote "the bible" for the Reagan Rev than deluding themselves into thinking that they are based in reason.

Comments?

I believe revenues can go up if certain taxes are cut in a resposible manner.
However to say cutting taxes will guarantee an increase in revenue is ridiculous.
I had rather cut government spending. But if increasing government revenues
is absolutely necessary and raising taxes is the only way to do it, then I hope it
would be done fairly so less burden is put on lower income people. But I do not
think increasing taxes on a small business owner will help the economy and it
may run him out of business and make the economy even worse. There are
many rich people that could be taxed more that would not hurt the economy.
But it seems that the federal government is made up of people that either do
not know how to do it or they are too lazy or stubborn to make an attempt at
creating a fair system for all.

P.S. I don't think a flat tax is the solution. And having the same percentage
tax on all regardless of what is being taxed is not fair. Some rich people get
all their income from capital gains and have no earned income at all because
they do not work. But to raise the capital gains tax for all hurts the small investor who may be relying on that income to supplement his social security
retirement.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There are many rich people that could be taxed more that would not hurt the economy.
But it seems that the federal government is made up of people that either do
not know how to do it or they are too lazy or stubborn to make an attempt at
creating a fair system for all.

The government is made up of rich people who would very much like a tax break. It has nothing to do with laziness or stubbornness or ignorance.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The government is made up of rich people who would very much like a tax break. It has nothing to do with laziness or stubbornness or ignorance.

I noticed that when I was in the Military they were very quick at giving themselves
hugh raises, while postponing any raises in pay for the military. Most of
them are just in it for themselves regardless of the Party.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Faith without evidence or justification, who in the world has that?
Kelly

You do...

Also...
Everyone who believes in a god or gods, the supernatural, homoeopathy, souls, spirits, the afterlife,
Aliens in area 51, Acupuncture.... ect. ect.

Many many people believe things without evidence or rational justification.
Most of them think they DO have a reason for believing whatever it is, but thinking you have rational
for believing something and actually objectively having it are two different things.
Sloppy and irrational thinking abounds (mainly because people are not taught how to think rationally
or why it is beneficial to do so) and this leads people to hold beliefs that are not supported by evidence
and are not rationally justified.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You do...

Also...
Everyone who believes in a god or gods, the supernatural, homoeopathy, souls, spirits, the afterlife,
Aliens in area 51, Acupuncture.... ect. ect.

Many many people believe things without evidence or rational justification.
Most of them think they DO have a reason for believing whatever it is, but thinking you have rational
f ...[text shortened]... ds people to hold beliefs that are not supported by evidence
and are not rationally justified.

So you say, I do not see it that way.
For me there is a great deal of evidence and justification, just because you
do not agree with me does not at all mean it isn't there, it only means you
reject my reasons and justification.

Not being able to prove something does not mean that there isn't evidence
for it, it only means people do not think the evidence is enough or goes to
the point like those who do accept it.
Kelly

Originally posted by epiphinehas
As faith is belief without evidence or justification and often despite evidence to the contrary it is inherently and by definition gaurenteed to lead to false beliefs and resists any attempts to correct those beliefs.

I agree with you, but only insofar as faith is defined as belief lacking any evidence or justification. The problem is, it does ...[text shortened]... ssible to form a belief without actually having any reason to think it's true? I doubt it.

"I agree with you, but only insofar as faith is defined as belief lacking any evidence or justification.
The problem is, it doesn't seem possible for anyone, religious or otherwise, to form beliefs in this fashion."

Actually it is more than possible it's almost inevitable.

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

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-bias/


People have bad brains, we naturally see pattens where none exist, and delude ourselves into seeing things that aren't there.

People will (nearly) always claim a 'reason' for their beliefs, but that doesn't mean that they have any evidence or a rational justification
for those beliefs.

Originally posted by KellyJay
So you say, I do not see it that way.
For me there is a great deal of evidence and justification, just because you
do not agree with me does not at all mean it isn't there, it only means you
reject my reasons and justification.

Not being able to prove something does not mean that there isn't evidence
for it, it only means people do not think the evidence is enough or goes to
the point like those who do accept it.
Kelly

Well unfortunately for you there are objective rational standards for evaluating evidence
and none of your 'evidence' meets any of those standards.

Take for example the 'cosmological argument'.

Basically it is the argument that the universe couldn't have come about natural and thus
because it exists the universe is evidence of a creator (almost always stipulated to be the
particular god of the person making the argument).

However this is wrong.
For this argument to work and for the universe to actually be evidence FOR the existence of
a god or gods then you have to prove that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe to form without
a creator. Which means that you have to positively rule out every possible way for a universe
to be formed other than by an intelligent creator with the attributes of a god.
If there are other explanations other than an omnipotent creator then it isn't evidence FOR
the creator because it could be one of the other explanations.

It is however almost impossible (if not actually impossible) to rule out every possible mechanism
for the creation of the universe (this is assuming that the universe actually has a beginning and
hasn't existed forever) and thus the existence of the universe will and can NEVER be evidence
for the existence of a god.

It's a plain and simple argument from ignorance fallacy.


There just isn't ANY evidence that is FOR the existence of a god or gods.

Now given that a being with the power ascribed to a creator god could do anything and make the
universe any way they want to there is no condition you could find the universe in that would be
incompatible with and thus refute the existence of a god. But evidence FOR a god must be evidence
that could ONLY come about through no other mechanism other than a god and no such evidence exists.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well unfortunately for you there are objective rational standards for evaluating evidence
and none of your 'evidence' meets any of those standards.

Take for example the 'cosmological argument'.

Basically it is the argument that the universe couldn't have come about natural and thus
because it exists the universe is evidence of a creator (almost NLY come about through no other mechanism other than a god and no such evidence exists.

Well give me a natural method of getting something from nothing!
Show me one example in the universe at any time in any place where we
got something to occur without cause naturally!
If you cannot do that, than we are not talking about a 'natural' event are we?

I'm willing to say that alone does not prove God did it, but that isn't the total
reasons I have for excepting God as the cause. It is however something that
does fly in the face of you and those like you that seem to think there is a
'natural' reason for the unnatural start of the natural universe.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Well give me a natural method of getting something from nothing!
Show me one example in the universe at any time in any place where we
got something to occur without cause naturally!
If you cannot do that, than we are not talking about a 'natural' event are we?

I'm willing to say that alone does not prove God did it, but that isn't the total
reasons ...[text shortened]... think there is a
'natural' reason for the unnatural start of the natural universe.
Kelly

Virtual particles pop into and out of existence all the time with no cause.
This has been observed and proven, and is not conjecture.

Also define nothing, and show me an example of nothing so we can test if
anything can come form it.

I didn't say that the cosmological argument was one of your reasons for belief
in god let alone all of them. I just picked it as an example of one of the reasons
people often cite for belief in a god.

I can destroy any and all reasons you have for believing in god and will happily do
so if you tell me which ones you happen to ascribe to.

The reason I can do this is that there ARE no rational reasons for believing in a
god without evidence FOR god and evidence FOR god would be unmissable.
I know you don't have any evidence because if you did I (and everyone else)
would already know about it.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]this is certainly not reliable “EVIDENCE” of “past events” to say the least especially if those said “past events” are supposed to involve something absurd such as something supernatural ( such as a god )...

Your line of reasoning here, taken from Hume's (outmoded) in principle argument against belief in miracles, contains two questionable clai therefore it doesn't follow that "faith is dangerous and immoral," as you claim.[/b]

your post is confused and fatally flawed as I will demonstrate:

“....Regarding claim (1), if we do nothing more than weigh the probability of an event against the reliability of the witness to the event, this would, in principle, lead us to deny highly improbable events we would otherwise reasonably infer actually happened. For instance, if a news station announces the winning lottery numbers, a set of numbers you happened to have picked, an event which has a probability of ~1/200 million, even if we assume the reliability of the news station is 99.9% ...”

you are making the dreadful all-to-common fallacy of probability here of completely confusing and completely failing to make the distinction between two DIFFERENT types of probability; specifically, the probability of a process occurring that inevitably gives an unlikely outcome and the probability of that unlikely outcome being whatever it is.
In this particular case, the probability of a process occurring that inevitably gives an unlikely outcome is the lottery happening; that process ( not the outcome ) has the probability of nearly 100% because it doesn't usually get cancelled once it is scheduled. And the inevitably unlikely outcome in this case is the winning number as well as exactly who won. You have confused these two DIFFERENT probabilities so that it is not the case that “ this would, in principle, lead us to deny highly improbable events we would otherwise reasonably infer actually happened” in this case as you suggest because the fact that the OUTCOME ( NOT to be confused with the PROCESS ) has a ~1/200 million chance of being whatever it is is irrelevant because the probability of AN unlikely event occurring ( i.e. not any particular one of the many possible ones ) is closer to 100% because the PROCESS ( NOT to be confuted with its OUTCOME ) that caused it has a probability of occurring of close to 100% .

In addition, we have VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE that the lottery can happen; if you want verification, you don't require mere other witnesses for you could witness the lottery yourself next time it happens. We have no such VERIFIABLE evidence of miracles.

“...Your claim that faith is immoral, insofar as it is based on the immoral acts of the 9/11 hijackers, ...”

NO! that was not the only premise but merely supporting non-essential evidence for my claim. Read my posts again. I gave an ARGUMENT for why. Reminder:

“...Once you make yourself come to have one absurd belief ( such as there is a God ) then that is just one short step away from making yourself come to have other absurd beliefs ( such as certain races are inferior and should be eliminated because of this etc ) ….” ( just one of my quotes in argument for my claim )

what is your counterargument to this? I have yet to hear any counterargument from anyone on these forums.

“...You admitted that faith is only potentially dangerous. ...”

it is not just “potentially” dangerous; it IS dangerous!!!! That is my point.

“...That is true, but how do you arrive at faith's immorality based on a mere potentiality? ..”

it is not based on “ mere potentiality” for, without faith it would be ALMOST INEVITABLE that there would be less evil acts committed in the world for the reasons I have already given.

“...A hammer is potentially dangerous, too (hammers can be potential murder weapons) ...”

yes, but it isn't INEVITABLY dangerous. There being hammers in the world does not UNNECESSARILY lead to more harm than good but having faith in our world does!
So my original assertion stands firm:

Faith is immoral.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Well give me a natural method of getting something from nothing!
Show me one example in the universe at any time in any place where we
got something to occur without cause naturally!
If you cannot do that, than we are not talking about a 'natural' event are we?

I'm willing to say that alone does not prove God did it, but that isn't the total
reasons ...[text shortened]... think there is a
'natural' reason for the unnatural start of the natural universe.
Kelly

“...Well give me a natural method of getting something from nothing! ...”

if you are talking about the big bang then anyone who has understood it will tell you that it does NOT say that everything came from “nothing” because at NO point in time ( not even the first point in time if there really was a 'first point'. I have no personal opinion of whether there was or wasn't a beginning of time ) was there “nothing”. There always existed “something” and never “nothing” so no need to get “something from nothing”.

Originally posted by humy
“...Well give me a natural method of getting something from nothing! ...”

if you are talking about the big bang then anyone who has understood it will tell you that it does NOT say that everything came from “nothing” because at NO point in time ( not even the first point in time if there really was a 'first point'. I have no personal opinion of whether there ...[text shortened]... re always existed “something” and never “nothing” so no need to get “something from nothing”.

The Big Bang is not an event that talks about something from nothing!
Kelly

Originally posted by humy
“...Well give me a natural method of getting something from nothing! ...”

if you are talking about the big bang then anyone who has understood it will tell you that it does NOT say that everything came from “nothing” because at NO point in time ( not even the first point in time if there really was a 'first point'. I have no personal opinion of whether there ...[text shortened]... re always existed “something” and never “nothing” so no need to get “something from nothing”.

So like I've been saying there is no idea in the head of man period that can
talk about how everthing got here, it is a complete blank! There isn't a cause
or anything else, instead we see this dance around the time line which is also
something by the way. What is left is a huge I don't know, but what I do know
is that God had nothing to do with it, as if there was something that suggested
that in this great I don't know.
Kelly

Originally posted by googlefudge
Virtual particles pop into and out of existence all the time with no cause.
This has been observed and proven, and is not conjecture.

Also define nothing, and show me an example of nothing so we can test if
anything can come form it.

I didn't say that the cosmological argument was one of your reasons for belief
in god let alone all of them. I ...[text shortened]... on't have any evidence because if you did I (and everyone else)
would already know about it.

If they are popping in and out that isn't saying they are forming and leaving
without reason, it is just saying we are losing track of them.
Kelly

Originally posted by googlefudge
Virtual particles pop into and out of existence all the time with no cause.
This has been observed and proven, and is not conjecture.

Also define nothing, and show me an example of nothing so we can test if
anything can come form it.

I didn't say that the cosmological argument was one of your reasons for belief
in god let alone all of them. I ...[text shortened]... on't have any evidence because if you did I (and everyone else)
would already know about it.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me how everything got here, do that I'll talk
about God.


In the mean time nothing.
Nothing is difficult to talk about, because as soon as you do you put shape and
form to it. In computer programing you can have a null value, it isn't defined,
but it is still there waiting to be formed. Nothing goes beyond that, not only
is it empty of all things there isn't a place holder either its a complete lack of
all form, substance, or any other word that gives shape, meaning ,purpuse,
and so on.

As soon as you put into place even an empty place holder you have something,
as soon as you speak of a void you have something, nothing is the lack of
all there is, was, or could be.

From that if anything changes so that there is something there, what caused
that is more than nothing.
Kelly