Protestant Family and my search for truth.

[IndiReloaded]

Mish, your second to last post is so full of logical inconsistencies that I, frankly, don't know where to begin. Nor do I have the time. Mbe someone else will try to help you. I'm really sorry, but its like you haven't understood a lot of the previous posts, you still seem to confuse the basic difference b/t logic & belief. I find that very disturbing.

I would also like to point out blind belief and rational thinking can go hand in hand.

No, not at all. Not when thinking about the same subject. Its one or the other.

Anyone is suceptible to manipulation

.

Never said otherwise. Question is, does certain types of mental training predispose a mind to it. I would say religion that requires blind faith does, more so than a mind that hasn't experience this training. That is all I have ever said Mish. I'm interested in relative probabilities.

Though I would like to point out the key word being "Authority" not Religion.

You are sadly ignorant if you don't think Religion is a form of Authority. History says otherwise in too many instances to list.

[Mish]

Mish, your second to last post is so full of logical inconsistencies that I, frankly, don't know where to begin. Nor do I have the time. Mbe someone else will try to help you. I'm really sorry, but its like you haven't understood a lot of the previous posts, you still seem to confuse the basic difference b/t logic & belief. I find that very disturbing.

[url]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/logic[/url]

[url]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief[/url]

What am I confusing specifically? What are the logical inconsitencies?

I want to point out that just saying this doesn't automatically make it so. If you make a statement you have it support it with a fact or at least some reference point(A hallmark of a good scientist)

Never said otherwise. Question is, does certain types of mental training predispose a mind to it. I would say religion that requires blind faith does, more so than a mind that hasn't experience this training. That is all I have ever said Mish. I'm interested in relative probabilities.

So you are saying that Religious people following blind faith can be more easily manipulated than Atheists? Which Religious people follow blind faith? In what circumstances do you believe they can be more easily manipulated?

You are sadly ignorant if you don't think Religion is a form of Authority. History says otherwise in too many instances to list.

Don't reach for assumptions on my level of ignorance Indi. I didn't say that Religion is not a form of Authrotiy, but that article quoted "Authority" specifically not "Religion". I.e. Any form of Authority can increase capacity for humans to BLINDLY cause pain to another human. That Authority can be in a form of Government, School or anything else. There is a distinction between authority and Religion. Religion can be a form of authority and it can be not an authority. Depending on circumstance and Religion in question.

[IndiReloaded]

What am I confusing specifically? What are the logical inconsitencies?

I want to point out that just saying this doesn't automatically make it so. If you make a statement you have it support it with a fact or at least some reference point(A hallmark of a good scientist)

Are you a scientist Mish?

Please, you are trying to appeal to my ego in this. I don't have any requirement to go through your logic problems. I do this the same as I would for a confused student. Put another way, more arrogantly but likely true, this argument would look much better on your CV than mine.

Seriously, when I read a post & I see more than three things that don't make sense, I just don't have the time to explain. Esp when I'm pretty sure I already did in an earlier post.

One thing I've noticed is that you tend to neglect to address certain key rebuttal comments, which several posters have mentioned in various forms:

I would also like to point out blind belief and rational thinking can go hand in hand.

No, not at all. Not when thinking about the same subject. Its one or the other.

So you are saying that Religious people following blind faith can be more easily manipulated than Atheists?

Yes, you get it finally. That is exactly what I am saying. Of course there are always exceptions, which you will no doubt scan the web for, but I'm speaking in generalities for a population. There are waaaay too many examples of religious ppl being manipulated into doing all kinds crazy things because of their beliefs (this is the key point & you cannot ignore this part). In contrast, you will find much fewer atheists manipulated into doing irrational acts because of their irreligion.

If I were to draw the distribution plots of self-proclaimed religious vs. atheist ppl randomly selected across the globe, & plot for 'philosophy driven acts of violence'. I'm pretty sure I would find that the religious folks' mean would be waay right shifted. Both historically and today.

Now, the REASONS for this are up to debate, but as I said, I think its simply to do w/the fact that taking something ON FAITH must, by definition, bypass any decision based on logic and proof. Once the logic pathways have been bypassed once, it is easier to continue to arrive at non-logic based decisions. (This is particularly problematic when belief-based decision occurs despite the existence of large amounts of contradicting proof, as is the case for those choosing to believe literal interpretations of the bible--and there are a LOT of those ppl around, we aren't talking about some small subset of society).

So, sure, I would say that fundamentalists are particularly susceptible. But even 'soft' religion still paves the path for larger lapses in logic to happen.

BTW, 'philosophy driven acts of violence' = acts of violence that are mutually agreed upon by *both groups* to be wrong (e.g. murder, biogotry, hate crimes, etc.), that are done IN THE NAME OF their philosophy of choice (i.e. 'in the name of Lord God' vs. 'in the name of Atheism').

There is a distinction between authority and Religion. Religion can be a form of authority and it can be not an authority. Depending on circumstance and Religion in question.

This is bullshit, Mish^.

ALL religion (well, all major religions I know of: Christianity, Muslim, Judaism, Buddhism--all of them) makes appeal to some kind of authority that then asks for some kind of BELIEF in something that is logically, unproven or unprovable.

Are you confusing religion & spirituality? Or religion & philosophy. There's a difference. I'm talking any religion w/clergy or equivalent where there is an appeal to a higher/unknown power or process that cannot be know & so must be accepted on faith alone.

Though, upon thinking about it, I would have to say Pastafarians might not fit this definition. Satirical religions are exempt b/c they actually promote rational thought by juxtaposition.

[Mish]

Are you a scientist Mish?

No I'm not

But you are

Please, you are trying to appeal to my ego in this. I don't have any requirement to go through your logic problems. I do this the same as I would for a confused student. Put another way, more arrogantly but likely true, this argument would look much better on your CV than mine.

You're damn right I'm trying to appeal to your ego. If you say I have logic problems then show them to me, otherwise you run the risk of me thinking you conjured them up out of thin air.

Seriously, when I read a post & I see more than three things that don't make sense, I just don't have the time to explain. Esp when I'm pretty sure I already did in an earlier post.

Doesn't make sense to you. To me it might. We think differently. You said my logical inconsistencies were in the post directly before your last one. You wouldn't have been able to explain them in earlier posts.

One thing I've noticed is that you tend to neglect to address certain key rebuttal comments, which several posters have mentioned in various forms:

I don't neglect. I just tried to shorten our discussion since both you and I don't have a lot of time to kill over this. I didn't realize that one line was a key rebuttal. Since you say it is, I will reply to it as well.

" I would also like to point out blind belief and rational thinking can go hand in hand.
No, not at all. Not when thinking about the same subject. Its one or the other."

I will just bring you one example. A person can rationalize invasion of Iraq from the point of view that the end will justify the means and it will all be better for everyone involved in the end while at the same time following the blind belief of the party line.

Yes, you get it finally. That is exactly what I am saying. Of course there are always exceptions, which you will no doubt scan the web for, but I'm speaking in generalities for a population. There are waaaay too many examples of religious ppl being manipulated into doing all kinds crazy things because of their beliefs (this is the key point & you cannot ignore this part). In contrast, you will find much fewer atheists manipulated into doing irrational acts because of their irreligion.

If I were to draw the distribution plots of self-proclaimed religious vs. atheist ppl randomly selected across the globe, & plot for 'philosophy driven acts of violence'. I'm pretty sure I would find that the religious folks' mean would be waay right shifted. Both historically and today.

I understand what you are saying Indi. However have you factored in to the calculation that:

1. Religious people outnumber Atheists today and outnumbered them for most of the human history
2. Religious people have a much longer history of being in Government and being in Authority (Thus holding positions we discussed earlier suscpetible to "Social Darwinism")
3. Atheists as an Ideology has not been yet sufficiently teststed in politics apart from a couple of extreme examples with Soviet Union which had disastrous results.

I agree with you that it's a lot easier to find negative examples on Religious side, but is it because like you said due to belief or is it because that Atheists are not yet a majority and haven't had as many opportunities to cause havoc as Religious people?

Now, the REASONS for this are up to debate, but as I said, I think its simply to do w/the fact that taking something ON FAITH must, by definition, bypass any decision based on logic and proof. Once the logic pathways have been bypassed once, it is easier to continue to arrive at non-logic based decisions. (This is particularly problematic when belief-based decision occurs despite the existence of large amounts of contradicting proof, as is the case for those choosing to believe literal interpretations of the bible--and there are a LOT of those ppl around, we aren't talking about some small subset of society).

So, sure, I would say that fundamentalists are particularly susceptible. But even 'soft' religion still paves the path for larger lapses in logic to happen.

Your argument is logical Indi and it's an interesting obesrvation. The key point here being (Like you pointed out) "the REASONS for this are up to debate".

I understand what you are saying here i.e. Once a person chooses belief over proof they become more suscpetible to make decisions based on belief instead of proof. Although I agree with you on this to an extent, it's still debatable whether or not a person who chooses a particular belief over proof can be manipulated easier than a person who doesn't. You have to explore this under a magnifying glass and apply to individuals if you really want to know the outcome. What is the belief? What are the reasons for a person to choose this belief over proof? Is it just this belief they accept over proof or also many others? Is it a reasonable action? E.g. a person chooses to believe they are pretty as not to damage their self esteem when in reality they are ugly. Would you classify these people in the calculation as well?

You are making a dangerous generalization that every single person who chooses a belief over a fact is more susceptible to manipulation than a person who doesn't. If this is true, than we are all guilty of this and are all equally suscpetible to manipulation. We all choose to believe in something for whatever reason which is not related or have no grounding in reality (Going back to what I posted earlier, we all live in our own personal subjective reality).

BTW, 'philosophy driven acts of violence' = acts of violence that are mutually agreed upon by *both groups* to be wrong (e.g. murder, biogotry, hate crimes, etc.), that are done IN THE NAME OF their philosophy of choice (i.e. 'in the name of Lord God' vs. 'in the name of Atheism').

Okay. Though historically philosophically driven acts of violence were not in the name of Atheism. They were in the name "Modernizing society by eliminating mythologies from social midst" by groups of individuals holding Aitheist believes. Just like philosophically motivated acts of violence from Religious side were made by individuals holding Religious believes (I.e. individuals not representative of entire Religious community).

This is bullshit, Mish^.

ALL religion (well, all major religions I know of: Christianity, Muslim, Judaism, Buddhism--all of them) makes appeal to some kind of authority that then asks for some kind of BELIEF in something that is logically, unproven or unprovable.

Even though some of them do, this authority is mostly not necessary for a Religious person to pursue their faith or be classified as a Religious person. As long as an individual follows the Religious tenets they are part of the coimmunity. This is why I said both yes and no. If you google for example "What makes person a Christian" it will show you that making any appeal to any Religious Authority is not required and is not neccessary to be classified as Christian.

Are you confusing religion & spirituality? Or religion & philosophy. There's a difference. I'm talking any religion w/clergy or equivalent where there is an appeal to a higher/unknown power or process that cannot be know & so must be accepted on faith alone.

Though, upon thinking about it, I would have to say Pastafarians might not fit this definition. Satirical religions are exempt b/c they actually promote rational thought by juxtaposition.

I am reffering to every Religion with clergy and without.

Okay, I have to go Indi. I will check back sometime during the weekend.

Have a good one

[Only-virgins]

That's because Atheism is not a deafult mode. It's human nature to attribute the unknown to supernatural. It takes a certain learnt perspective to reject/ignore everything yet unexplained.

E.g. The Default answer to the question "Does God exist" is neither yes or no. It's "I don't know".

No, Atheism is the default. If born around no idea of god and the spiritual all bets are off. The human wouldn't pay attention to something he doesn't know or realize. Like animals. There is to much left in the term "I don't know" ... Some cultures would try and explain some things away they don't understand then they make things up, god is one but some cultures made up mythical animals for example. Actually trying to explain away by making things up is stupidity and ignorance in the most pure form, if anything that is where a typical none human animal has the advantage, the dog doesn't give a shit. Like I said, unproven claims should be kept in ones head unless evidence is available to prove it. Atheists do nothing, theists must prove themself. In some cases we can say things like " I don't know" specially with questions such as "Is there other life out there in the universe?" ...specially since this is a possibility. ..God and religion has so many contradictions that it is just a great big joke now.

I replace my "maybes" with "no" unless proven otherwise in many cases.

In a civilized, rational society the answer is "There's no reason to think so." We aren't a bunch of tribals scratching our heads in confusion when a bolt of lightning sets fire to the forest. People need to realize this.

What he said.

You're right. Science can never be certain of anything. Fact was a poor choice. That's the beauty of science, though. It's constantly changing, evolving, building upon itself. Change is what science is all about. A good scientist doesn't want to defend his hypothesis. He wants to attack it from all sides and tear it almost completely apart. What's left standing is all that matters.

Religion, on the other hand, clings to ancient texts written thousands of years ago which are almost direct retellings of other ancient texts written thousands of years before that which are based off oral stories told even further in the past. Scientists freely acknowledge that half of what's in that ten year old textbook is no longer relevant. When will theists come around?

I explained this to Mish pages and pages ago. He doesn't understand this.

So how can a rational society be built following nothing but facts, when what is fact alone changes every decade?

Only the really weak facts that never were properly tested because of lack of ways to even do the experiments that usually change. We have facts Mish, stop making it sound like they ALL change. I guarantee you that while the earth was believed to be flat once(by religious buffs ironically) we do now know that it is round...that is not going to change. What about evolution, we have first hand experienced evidence of this stuff now...now way in hell is this ever changing. Evolution is REAL...like it or not.

I've said this before also. Several pages back. I don't care, ppl can believe all the fantasy they want. I happen to like the idea of Santa & the Easter Bunny. I even look at my horoscope in the paper for fun when I'm bored. Just don't call it rational or scientific & don't teach it in schools as part of a science curriculum.

Exactly, I even enjoy ghost stories on the Discovery channel and UFO shows.. real or not just entertainment for example to me. It is once people start spreading myths as facts that it bothers me.

We don't reject our DNA Indi. We copy it. Every time a cell devides we have a copy of the old with some relatively minor changes. After a while these relatively minor changes turn into big changes when compared to the ones from before. You of all people should know that. Imagine what would happen if every single new cell had no similarity to the one it devided from?

She said changes, Indi never said the entire cell is altered. I will though, you are just thinking short term...

I disagree with that. Atheism in its purest form teaches to reject or at least ignore everything that's not supported by facts.

Perfect!!! now just replace the word "atheism" here with "logic". No offense but that sounds like a golden rule to me. I mean why would you ever accept anything just because? Logic tells us not to, not atheism.

[IndiReloaded]

Quote:
You said my logical inconsistencies were in the post directly before your last one. You wouldn't have been able to explain them in earlier posts.

I’m just saying what OV also said: that some points of discussion were already addressed in my earlier posts & I don’t want to repeat myself.

Quote:
I will just bring you one example. A person can rationalize invasion of Iraq from the point of view that the end will justify the means and it will all be better for everyone involved in the end while at the same time following the blind belief of the party line.

No, those are two different problems Mish: the problem of deciding to invade Iraq & the problem of whether to believe the party line.

For a given problem, you can only make a decision either by: logical analysis based on available fact, OR by belief. They are mutally exclusive decision making processes.

In the first case, invading Iraq, you have to decide to either look at all the available facts & decide if they make sense, OR you decide to believe what the elected party has decided. One or the other.

Quote:
I understand what you are saying Indi. However have you factored in to the calculation that:

1. Religious people outnumber Atheists today and outnumbered them for most of the human history
2. Religious people have a much longer history of being in Government and being in Authority (Thus holding positions we discussed earlier suscpetible to "Social Darwinism")
3. Atheists as an Ideology has not been yet sufficiently teststed in politics apart from a couple of extreme examples with Soviet Union which had disastrous results.

LOL, non, I don’t have to take any of those factors into account. Not for the hypothesis I set up, which was to demonstrate there is (or isn’t) a difference in # of violent acts b/t the groups. The mean is either right shifted significantly, or it isn’t.

And I don’t have to sample the entire population of atheists and religious types either. All I need is a random sampling of large enough sample size from each group to give my analysis enough power for the result to have meaning.

Now, your points might be useful to EXPLAIN such a difference. But that would change nothing about the fact that there WAS a difference in the first place. You don’t have to understand the mechanism of an effect to show that there IS one. Get it?

This would make a really interesting sociology thesis (and probably a bestseller book, like ‘The Bell Curve’) for someone, BTW, if anyone reading this is into such.

You are making a dangerous generalization that every single person who chooses a belief over a fact is more susceptible to manipulation than a person who doesn't.

I'm making a hypothesis. And a very testable one at that, lol. If this scares anyone who considers themselves strongly religious, good. It should.

If this is true, than we are all guilty of this and are all equally suscpetible to manipulation.

No, not EQUALLY. That is what I am saying. My *belief* that my newspaper will arrive tomorrow (b/c I don't have any proof unless I go online at 4 am to check if the driver left, lol) isn't at all the same as my *belief* that the earth is less than 10000 years old. Despite the readily available evidence that says this is WRONG (and not merely wrong, lol, orders of magnitude wrong).

[Only-virgins]

My *belief* that my newspaper will arrive tomorrow (b/c I don't have any proof unless I go online at 4 am to check if the driver left, lol) isn't at all the same as my *belief* that the earth is less than 10000 years old. Despite the readily available evidence that says this is WRONG (and not merely wrong, lol, orders of magnitude wrong).

Best thing I have heard all day.

[Mish]

No, Atheism is the default. If born around no idea of god and the spiritual all bets are off. The human wouldn't pay attention to something he doesn't know or realize. Like animals.

I don't believe Atheism is default OV. If born around no Idea of God an idea of God or Gods will naturally develop probably in most people. The history of human race had been a testament to this (Unless ofcourse they are taught otherwise). From what age would that happen? Would be an interesting question. Some psychologists suggest that people as young as toddlers identify heir parents as deities.

I'm not quite sure why you mentioned animals. Are animals Atheists? How did you find this out? I have anecdotal evidence and reasons to believe that my cat believed I was a God. How will you prove that my cat didn't believe I was a deity?

Before you ask me to prove the opposite I just want to point out that I'm not the one making a factual statement that animals are theists or atheist.

Only the really weak facts that never were properly tested because of lack of ways to even do the experiments that usually change. We have facts Mish, stop making it sound like they ALL change. I guarantee you that while the earth was believed to be flat once(by religious buffs ironically) we do now know that it is round...that is not going to change. What about evolution, we have first hand experienced evidence of this stuff now...now way in hell is this ever changing. Evolution is REAL...like it or not.

While we know today that Earth is round, it doesn't mean somebody tomorrow won't discover that it's not of perfect symetery to be classified as round and is in fact of different shape all together which today yet has no name. While we know today that evolution is real, tomorrow someone may discover that there are other factors in the equation that we yet don't know. It's like I said our facts are ever changing and relevant only to the present. There is a possibility that any or all of the facts we believe in today are wrong.

There's nothing wrong in believing in facts of the present by the way. As long as you realize other people's right to believe in what they want to believe and not discriminate against them.

She said changes, Indi never said the entire cell is altered. I will though, you are just thinking short term...

Indi said "We reject our DNA" so this is how I interpreted it. By the way if you red my post further you will find that it was addressing both short term and long term changes.

Perfect!!! now just replace the word "atheism" here with "logic". No offense but that sounds like a golden rule to me. I mean why would you ever accept anything just because? Logic tells us not to, not atheism.

That post was aimed at Indi's quote that "Atheism doesn't teach anything". I'm glad you agree that it does OV.

This may be a golden rule to you, but not necessarily for many others. Some will argue that too little has been proven to base our behaviors on facts alone. Some people will say that our logic and facts of the present aren't perfect and are flawed. Some people will say this teaching discounts other very important subjective factors which are not yet or will never be explained or even properly understood. Some people would not want to be forced to view the world through filters of Atheism and operate this way.

So like I said before, while I have no quarrels with Atheism, it's not hard to see how it may not be everyone's cup of tea


Indi, I don't have time right now but I will get to your posts later on as well

[Mish]

I’m just saying what OV also said: that some points of discussion were already addressed in my earlier posts & I don’t want to repeat myself.

No Indi. You were saying something else. You were saying I have inconsistency in logic. I'm still waiting for the reference points

As far as repeating goes, yes I have repeated myself a few times as well, though I don't remember accusing you for inconsistencies in your logic. I don't do it because I know it's not very nice, especially if I don't show specific examples to prove my claim.

No, those are two different problems Mish: the problem of deciding to invade Iraq & the problem of whether to believe the party line.

For a given problem, you can only make a decision either by: logical analysis based on available fact, OR by belief. They are mutally exclusive decision making processes.

A person can come to the same conclusion by both making a decision by logical analysis and at the same time agreeing with the party line if both show the same or similar results or simply support each other. In this particular example these are not mutually exclusive decision making processes.

In the first case, invading Iraq, you have to decide to either look at all the available facts & decide if they make sense, OR you decide to believe what the elected party has decided. One or the other.

You can look at all the available facts then look at what's provided by the party. Then you make a decision based on how you choose to decipher these facts, decision that supports your larger world view. Facts are just figures, numbers. These many people died, these many probably. The decision of whether this is a good thing or a bad thing can be made on its own or as part of a larger global perspective. There is no either one or the other, people make decisions like that every day.

LOL, non, I don’t have to take any of those factors into account. Not for the hypothesis I set up, which was to demonstrate there is (or isn’t) a difference in # of violent acts b/t the groups. The mean is either right shifted significantly, or it isn’t.

And I don’t have to sample the entire population of atheists and religious types either. All I need is a random sampling of large enough sample size from each group to give my analysis enough power for the result to have meaning.

Now, your points might be useful to EXPLAIN such a difference. But that would change nothing about the fact that there WAS a difference in the first place. You don’t have to understand the mechanism of an effect to show that there IS one. Get it?

This would make a really interesting sociology thesis (and probably a bestseller book, like ‘The Bell Curve’) for someone, BTW, if anyone reading this is into such.

Okay Indi, this sounds perfect. How about you do this statistical experiment so we can find out the results? Take some random Religious persons and Random Atheists from China and find out their level of aggression / violent acts. I would especially like to see how you will classify their level of violent acts, for example what level will be an Atheist who would like to see annihilation of all Religious people?

I'm making a hypothesis. And a very testable one at that, lol. If this scares anyone who considers themselves strongly religious, good. It should.

Are you saying that you already have a conclusion BEFORE even making an experiment? Are we dealing with experimenter bias here?

No, not EQUALLY. That is what I am saying. My *belief* that my newspaper will arrive tomorrow (b/c I don't have any proof unless I go online at 4 am to check if the driver left, lol) isn't at all the same as my *belief* that the earth is less than 10000 years old. Despite the readily available evidence that says this is WRONG (and not merely wrong, lol, orders of magnitude wrong).

Ahhhh, so you do acknowledge that you are guilty of this terrible practice called "belief"? What if someone made a hypothesis that every single person who uses belief at any point in time is 10% more likely to do a violent act than a person who methodically (and robotically) actions based on factual information only. Would you be ready to modify your entire lifestyle? Wake up at 4am to check if the driver has left? Not take an umbrella with you when you see storm clouds because it hasn't been 100% confirmed that it will rain? Would you be ready to do that?

I'm sorry to have to do this to you Indi. Just trying to put you into a perspective of a Religious person who might be reading what you posted here

[DoesntMatter]

HOLY SHEEEEEIIIIITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

Guys, there are atheists, and there are religious people. They are just there, that's how it is

[IndiReloaded]

I'm sorry to have to do this to you Indi. Just trying to put you into a perspective of a Religious person who might be reading what you posted here

You haven't done anything to me Mish, lol. Now you are just getting desperate trying to sound like you have, when everyone following this thread knows you have yet to make a valid point. All you are trying to do is argue mine, lol. Its far easier to criticize someone elses point than make one of your own. Thus far, you don't understand the difference b/t a hypothesis and a conclusion, you don't understand how you completely (deliberately?) misunderstood my examples. You are totally ignoring what I am saying about belief (I never, ever said I didn't believe, you just don't understand the terms 'relative' and 'probability'). And you resort to hyperbole when arguing back against a point. And you want me to conduct an experiment I *clearly* stated as an example. I don't need to do it; there are already ppl studying this type of thing.

Its all very trying Mish. You are a sloppy arguer.

I don't need to convince you of anything or explain your poor logic any further (I already did, OV did earlier, you are just being deliberately obtuse). Its there plain as day. I am just really posting this as an example of how someone like you will argue against what is obvious & ignore the logical examples they are given. Its sad to do, but you are doing it to yourself so you only have yourself to blame, Mish.

I am well versed on BOTH sides of this argument. You are not. I have clergy in my family, I had to read the bible as a child, go to church, sunday school, etc. So I'm pretty knowledgable about religious belief & its application. I've seen it in action, first hand.

I am also trained as a scientist, which, yes, actually does make me something of a logic expert. So, if I say your logic is flawed, it likely is. If you solve a differential equation incorrectly, you can argue all you like as to why you think it's right, but that won't make you right Mish. Ultimately, however, the onus is on you to learn. I am under no obligation to attempt to educate you further, esp since I suspect you are more interested in rhetoric than understanding. That said, I will leave off by saying AGAIN that if you want to understand where your thinking is flawed, go to your library and read something on the subject from Bertand Russell or the more recent Richard Dawkins book. They discuss almost exactly what we have been covering & better than I. Go read & learn if you dare. Its all out there, logically laid out for you.

Or you can continue to *believe* you are right. Up to you. But I am done.

[IndiReloaded]

Ahhhh, so you do acknowledge that you are guilty of this terrible practice called "belief"? What if someone made a hypothesis that every single person who uses belief at any point in time is 10% more likely to do a violent act than a person who methodically (and robotically) actions based on factual information only. Would you be ready to modify your entire lifestyle? Wake up at 4am to check if the driver has left? Not take an umbrella with you when you see storm clouds because it hasn't been 100% confirmed that it will rain? Would you be ready to do that?

Just a 'for example'. This kind of post is what I am describing. If you argue like this IRL to a scientist, they will never take you seriously. Its useless rhetoric that doesn't actually refute anything I said & it makes you sound silly. Its called 'baffle them with bullshit'.

[Only-virgins]

I don't believe Atheism is default OV. If born around no Idea of God an idea of God or Gods will naturally develop probably in most people.

Probably? If you have a claim like that at least support it. I can support the opposite. Study of Anthropology can back me up. Many cultures who have been secluded from the outside world(odd to think so but they still exist) have no religion, or believe in other things beside god such as animal spirits and such. Though there are few where there is no spiritual belief at all.

You say unless taught otherwise? You don't teach the lack of religion, you teach religion. What nonsense is this Mish? You are going against all logic and reasoning.

You sometimes posted some good stuff to debate but this was just bad. We don't unteach new borns anything. They are born clear with an open mind, all we can do is help them be better observers and learners as they grow or poison their mind.

While we know today that Earth is round, it doesn't mean somebody tomorrow won't discover that it's not of perfect symetery to be classified as round and is in fact of different shape all together which today yet has no name. While we know today that evolution is real, tomorrow someone may discover that there are other factors in the equation that we yet don't know. It's like I said our facts are ever changing and relevant only to the present. There is a possibility that any or all of the facts we believe in today are wrong.

Mish, Earth is a sphere. It is not a perfect sphere but it is a sphere. It has a radius. it won't change. What ever discovery released in the future about biology will either support evolution or add onto it more idea...evolution will never change drastically..it is to painfully obvious that it is real and fact.

None of that matters though, the best part is that with data these have proofs. Religion has nothing. That is all there is. If new proofs arise than we may change the data and eventually change the final conclusion. These changes are rarely ever drastic unless people begin to assume to much...like those who attempted to assume the shape of earth with out even the ability to see it from space and measure it properly. Science itself essentially teaches itself good lessons. Don't assume anything, test it to death. If you can't test it...don't assume and just wait till you can. If it is obvious that you NEVER can then the idea is obviously delusional. Proper sane hypothesis and claims are testable at some point or another.

This may be a golden rule to you, but not necessarily for many others. Some will argue that too little has been proven to base our behaviors on facts alone. Some people will say that our logic and facts of the present aren't perfect and are flawed. Some people will say this teaching discounts other very important subjective factors which are not yet or will never be explained or even properly understood. Some people would not want to be forced to view the world through filters of Atheism and operate this way.

Yea and some people would want to rape a 9 year old girl, kill her, and stuff her in a body bag. What is your point? I am not arguing that people who rejects facts do not exist, I am arguing that they are crazy. They are the definition of crazy. While they can try and claim that I am the crazy one they fail as I have proofs. I have something, they have nothing. It ends there. I have centuries of brilliant minds, mathematicians, scientists on my side. The best minds ever backing me up. They have flase claims and beliefs backed up by the word "faith". Faith compared to Fact ...is like comparing Truth to a lie.





So the Last thing I really have to say to the original argument about Religion vs Science here, and I am sure Indi will agree is that the notion of reconciling science and religion has far gone and is no more possible with all the contradictions. Too many people have used religion for too long as a manipulative tool to obtain and maintain inordinate power and authority over others. And religion is based upon nothing but non verifiable supernatural beliefs. It's founded on nothing that is real. Certainly, many people have done good in the name of religion, but balance that with all the Crusades, the jihads, the Spanish Inquisition, and the many "heretics" throughout history who were hanged and burnt at the stake. One can justifiably argue that unscrupulous rulers have misused science and made the world a less happy place. But at least science is something that is real and testable.

THE END.

[Mish]

You haven't done anything to me Mish, lol. Now you are just getting desperate trying to sound like you have, when everyone following this thread knows you have yet to make a valid point. All you are trying to do is argue mine, lol. Its far easier to criticize someone elses point than make one of your own. Thus far, you don't understand the difference b/t a hypothesis and a conclusion, you don't understand how you completely (deliberately?) misunderstood my examples. You are totally ignoring what I am saying about belief (I never, ever said I didn't believe, you just don't understand the terms 'relative' and 'probability'). And you resort to hyperbole when arguing back against a point. And you want me to conduct an experiment I *clearly* stated as an example. I don't need to do it; there are already ppl studying this type of thing.

Its all very trying Mish. You are a sloppy arguer.

I don't need to convince you of anything or explain your poor logic any further (I already did, OV did earlier, you are just being deliberately obtuse). Its there plain as day. I am just really posting this as an example of how someone like you will argue against what is obvious & ignore the logical examples they are given. Its sad to do, but you are doing it to yourself so you only have yourself to blame, Mish.

I am well versed on BOTH sides of this argument. You are not. I have clergy in my family, I had to read the bible as a child, go to church, sunday school, etc. So I'm pretty knowledgable about religious belief & its application. I've seen it in action, first hand.

I am also trained as a scientist, which, yes, actually does make me something of a logic expert. So, if I say your logic is flawed, it likely is. If you solve a differential equation incorrectly, you can argue all you like as to why you think it's right, but that won't make you right Mish. Ultimately, however, the onus is on you to learn. I am under no obligation to attempt to educate you further, esp since I suspect you are more interested in rhetoric than understanding. That said, I will leave off by saying AGAIN that if you want to understand where your thinking is flawed, go to your library and read something on the subject from Bertand Russell or the more recent Richard Dawkins book. They discuss almost exactly what we have been covering & better than I. Go read & learn if you dare. Its all out there, logically laid out for you.

Or you can continue to *believe* you are right. Up to you. But I am done.

Hahahaha

Indi, Indi, Indi

What am I going to do with you?

So this is what it comes down to. You are giving up with "Yeh, you are a poopoo head anyway and I'm smarter than you, and I'm under no obligation to say why I think this way". How very scientific of you. You are behaving in exactly the same "emotionally charged and illogical" manner that you accuse Religious people participating in.

You are using your status as a scientist to "crush" me. As in, "because I'm a scientist I know my logic is better than yours and it probably is". Well, if you resort to argue this way (I.e. rely on attacking me without specific examples, relying on assumptions and information outside of facts) then all the best to you, I'm not going to continue this discussion with you any further.

Just a 'for example'. This kind of post is what I am describing. If you argue like this IRL to a scientist, they will never take you seriously. Its useless rhetoric that doesn't actually refute anything I said & it makes you sound silly. Its called 'baffle them with bullshit'.

That was something that began with a "What if" as in "Imagine". As in, drop down your gloves and imagine yourself in a situation you yourself are trying to create for other people. What would you do? You don't even have to be a scientist, just stop and imagine exactly the same situation done by a person with the same logic as above only pushing it even further along the same path.

[Mish]

Probably? If you have a claim like that at least support it.

To support this I used history which shows that most cultures even isolated ones believe or believed in deities or had some form of supernatural belief which Atheistic perspective denies. Which leads us to your supporting evidence.

I can support the opposite. Study of Anthropology can back me up. Many cultures who have been secluded from the outside world(odd to think so but they still exist) have no religion, or believe in other things beside god such as animal spirits and such.

Animal spirits being what? Being some supernatural beings in which natives believed? And in some way worshipped? You mean like deities? Like something that Atheism denies exists?

Though there are few where there is no spiritual belief at all.

I'm curious to know what these cultures were without any spiritual or supernatural belief? (I'm really am. I've never encountered one before.)

You say unless taught otherwise? You don't teach the lack of religion, you teach religion. What nonsense is this Mish?

A point of view is taught. You can teach to view the world through Religious perspective. Likewise, you can teach atheistic perspective. I.e You teach to deny belief in favour of facts. Beliefs that may have been learnt or beliefs that may have naturally developed in people.

For instance, without going to a meteorology site you may believe that it's going to rain by looking at the storm clouds. One point of view may support your belief, another point of view may tell you to abandon it if you don't have hard facts that this is what's going to happen. I'm not trying to say that one is Religion and the other is Atheism. I'm only using it as a metaphor.

We don't unteach new borns anything. They are born clear with an open mind, all we can do is help them be better observers and learners as they grow or poison their mind.

I didn't say we unteach them. I just pointed out that according to some psychologists children naturally develop a point of view that their parents are God like figures. While their mind develops they live in the universe that revolves around them and their providers are viewed as deities. As far as unteaching goes, you don't believe that children are born with an instinct? They cry when they are hungry to get attention of their parents, they cry when they sense danger. These are not learnt behaviors, they are instinctual.

Mish, Earth is a sphere. It is not a perfect sphere but it is a sphere. It has a radius. it won't change. What ever discovery released in the future about biology will either support evolution or add onto it more idea...evolution will never change drastically..it is to painfully obvious that it is real and fact.

The idea of evolution has already changed drastically from the moment of its inception one century and a half ago. I think its logical to assume that given another couple of centuries it will go through even more drastic changes.

None of that matters though, the best part is that with data these have proofs. Religion has nothing. That is all there is. If new proofs arise than we may change the data and eventually change the final conclusion. These changes are rarely ever drastic unless people begin to assume to much...like those who attempted to assume the shape of earth with out even the ability to see it from space and measure it properly. Science itself essentially teaches itself good lessons. Don't assume anything, test it to death. If you can't test it...don't assume and just wait till you can. If it is obvious that you NEVER can then the idea is obviously delusional. Proper sane hypothesis and claims are testable at some point or another.

I agree with that. By the way. Except for the part of changes rarely ever being drastic. There had been a lot of drastic changes as far as Scientific facts are concerned.

What I'm trying to say is that our beliefs in facts of today are not very concrete. What we believe today, tomorrow may be proven as false. Meaning that our reliance on facts of today can be following a blind belief. Something not too dissimilar of what Religious people are being accused of. Also we don't have all the facts, what we know is a tiny percentage of what's out there. Why should everyone be limited by facts alone?

Yea and some people would want to rape a 9 year old girl, kill her, and stuff her in a body bag. What is your point? I am not arguing that people who rejects facts do not exist, I am arguing that they are crazy. They are the definition of crazy..

Crazy has many definitions OV. But if by crazy you mean "mentally deranged". As in suffering from a mental illness, then I strongly disagree with you.

While they can try and claim that I am the crazy one they fail as I have proofs. I have something, they have nothing. It ends there. I have centuries of brilliant minds, mathematicians, scientists on my side. The best minds ever backing me up. They have flase claims and beliefs backed up by the word "faith". Faith compared to Fact ...is like comparing Truth to a lie.

I don't know who "they" are that you are reffering to. Are you reffering to someone in particular? You can't be reffering to Religious people I know because they would not label you in this way in the first place. Their philosophy is live and let live (Which I believe is a good philosophy to adopt for anyone).

As far as facts go. You are limited by them. You can only prove what is covered by them, everything that lies outside of these facts you can't know for sure, you can only speculate. Don't you agree?

So the Last thing I really have to say to the original argument about Religion vs Science here, and I am sure Indi will agree is that the notion of reconciling science and religion has far gone and is no more possible with all the contradictions. Too many people have used religion for too long as a manipulative tool to obtain and maintain inordinate power and authority over others. And religion is based upon nothing but non verifiable supernatural beliefs. It's founded on nothing that is real. Certainly, many people have done good in the name of religion, but balance that with all the Crusades, the jihads, the Spanish Inquisition, and the many "heretics" throughout history who were hanged and burnt at the stake. One can justifiably argue that unscrupulous rulers have misused science and made the world a less happy place. But at least science is something that is real and testable.

THE END.

Human nature is to use an ideology for good or for bad. If Religion is the dominant ideology it will be used for good or for bad. If Atheism is a dominant ideology it will be used for good or for bad as well. That's pretty much all I wanted to say from the beginning of this saga