I'm not sure -- did you say you are an atheist?
So no answer to my post.
I'm probably more agnostic. I don't believe any version of God I've investigated because of lack of evidence but I remain open to offers.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I'm not sure -- did you say you are an atheist?
OK I realize what you say. We are all unique. As I said, I did not have a quibble with God growing up, although I couldn't figure why there were so many different religions. At a certain point though I decided there was no God. But things changed after I "looked" for God because I needed Him, couldn't find Him. I found Him or rather, He found me. I am glad He did. But since it's personal, and the forum being what it is, I leave it with you and your journey, and hope the best for you.So no answer to my post.
I'm probably more agnostic. I don't believe any version of God I've investigated because of lack of evidence but I remain open to offers.
Since there is a God, He can reach a person. Does that mean every question is answered by Him now? No, it does not. It's kind of like science. But not quite.I think every religion believes they are the only ones who have it right because of some special esoteric ability. Show me the evidence.
How would you show that there is a god? Remember the old saying:Since there is a God, He can reach a person. Does that mean every question is answered by Him now? No, it does not. It's kind of like science. But not quite.
I don't know that there is a standard of evidence.
I think I've worked this out. I should believe whatever is posted without question or need of evidence. Everyone is right (except Darwin of course).
I don't know that there is a standard of evidence.
Okay, you two.
This is irrelevant, because you can as individuals do it differently. But if you want to get on a wild ride of what evidence is, then I can do that.
1st level. Is evidence cognitive in brains or independent of brains? Well, simple test. Point to evidence and explain how it is according to external sensory experience? You can't. You will always answer with what you think evidence is. That makes it a norm/standard/procedure to follow for what evidence is.
2nd level. Can the given person do meta-cognition or do the person take his/her/their thinking for granted?
Example:
Someone: I know the universe is physical and not from God.
Someone else: I know the universe is from God and not physical.
Me: I don't have to do either, because one of you are doing something false according to logic, yet we are all 3 in the universe.
The trick I use, is that I notice we are all 3 thinking, notice that we are 3 thinking differently and thus I test if I can think differently and get away with it.
3rd level. "Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." - Protagoras.
The first part is in other words, the different ways we evaluate what works.
Overall there are 5 different measures and then combinations for most contexts.
-Objective evidence as per observation/instruments and models made based on that.
-Objective logic as formal cognition in brains and how to do that.
-Inter-subjective norms for how we ought to interact, i.e. the social.
-Individually for how a given human cope; i.e. psychology.
-What happens when someone tries to make sense for all that and makes a model of that; i.e. a worldview.
4th level. For somebody like me, who have done this for close to 30 years including reading a lot of books about how worldviews work according to different models for different standards of evidence, I simply observe what is going on and answer with one of the 5 or a combination for a given context.
So for the dogmatic fundamentalistic theists it works for them subjectively, but it doesn't work for the standard of objective, but as long what they do, is subjective, they can do it subjectively.
And here is the joke for methodological naturalism and biology. They, you and I are variations down to the replication of the fittest genes, but since we are social animals, fittest is also local social environments and how to survive in them.
In other words, we are playing different limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism for different strategies of in effect the replication of the fittest genes.
Now if you want to do morality in effect as objective as possible and yet still accept it is subjective, I have learned that. But there is no <beep> objective evidence for that in the strongest sense. There are just some norms, that are more universal for the variation of humans and not:
I am right and you are wrong and I have evidence for that.
No idea what most of that means.
If someone claims evolution happens rapidly I just want to know what their evidence for that claim is.
How can someone talk about the condition of a region of the brain of people dead for thousands of years? Should I just accept that this person was able to examine those brains when no one else that studies and works with brains ever has? What about symbols that no one can translate or has yet to show is a language and yet a person claims it is a language as if it has been translated and that person even speaks it? Or claiming that we are not Homo sapiens on the basis of what they believe and for no reason that can be offered.Yeah and I want to know how come some people can claim something without evidence and still be in the universe. But that is individualism both for you and I.
The arrogance and dishonesty of creationists who presume to know more than any researcher on earth is if I may say so, most unchristian.I've come to expect being talked down to by creationists that have stopped learning, believing they know everything. They can believe in God and still learn about the world around I do. I do it. Others can too.
I think all this rationalization about claiming to present evidence that no one can is just a neat little word game to cover up the fact that there is no evidence to present and never will be. I wouldn't expect someone to be able to provide brain scans or sections of the brains of ancient people from 40,000 years ago to support wild claims about the conditions of the brains of those people. Claiming the existence of some physical aspect of ancient human brains without ever seeing evidence of those brains is ridiculous.
Any of us can make wild claims with no evidence, but there is no value in doing that.
The concept of fitness in biology seems to cause a great deal of trouble for religious people as they apply their personal views of the meaning of the term and ignore and advise rejection of any attempt at understanding the biological meaning. I've seen them become morally indignant at the idea of fitness, but only because they have decided to view it from their personal belief position as a means to sustain their dislike of science that makes them uncomfortable and challenges other aspects of their ideologies. It's a useful bias to sway themselves and others against a scientific theory.Okay, you two.
This is irrelevant, because you can as individuals do it differently. But if you want to get on a wild ride of what evidence is, then I can do that.
1st level. Is evidence cognitive in brains or independent of brains? Well, simple test. Point to evidence and explain how it is according to external sensory experience? You can't. You will always answer with what you think evidence is. That makes it a norm/standard/procedure to follow for what evidence is.
2nd level. Can the given person do meta-cognition or do the person take his/her/their thinking for granted?
Example:
Someone: I know the universe is physical and not from God.
Someone else: I know the universe is from God and not physical.
Me: I don't have to do either, because one of you are doing something false according to logic, yet we are all 3 in the universe.
The trick I use, is that I notice we are all 3 thinking, notice that we are 3 thinking differently and thus I test if I can think differently and get away with it.
3rd level. "Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." - Protagoras.
The first part is in other words, the different ways we evaluate what works.
Overall there are 5 different measures and then combinations for most contexts.
-Objective evidence as per observation/instruments and models made based on that.
-Objective logic as formal cognition in brains and how to do that.
-Inter-subjective norms for how we ought to interact, i.e. the social.
-Individually for how a given human cope; i.e. psychology.
-What happens when someone tries to make sense for all that and makes a model of that; i.e. a worldview.
4th level. For somebody like me, who have done this for close to 30 years including reading a lot of books about how worldviews work according to different models for different standards of evidence, I simply observe what is going on and answer with one of the 5 or a combination for a given context.
So for the dogmatic fundamentalistic theists it works for them subjectively, but it doesn't work for the standard of objective, but as long what they do, is subjective, they can do it subjectively.
And here is the joke for methodological naturalism and biology. They, you and I are variations down to the replication of the fittest genes, but since we are social animals, fittest is also local social environments and how to survive in them.
In other words, we are playing different limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism for different strategies of in effect the replication of the fittest genes.
Now if you want to do morality in effect as objective as possible and yet still accept it is subjective, I have learned that. But there is no <beep> objective evidence for that in the strongest sense. There are just some norms, that are more universal for the variation of humans and not:
I am right and you are wrong and I have evidence for that.
How can someone talk about the condition of a region of the brain of people dead for thousands of years? Should I just accept that this person was able to examine those brains when no one else that studies and works with brains ever has? What about symbols that no one can translate or has yet to show is a language and yet a person claims it is a language as if it has been translated and that person even speaks it? Or claiming that we are not Homo sapiens on the basis of what they believe and for no reason that can be offered.
Just because someone can think it doesn't make it real outside of their brains to anyone else. It doesn't make it a functioning model that provides a basis for others to acquire knowledge.
I've a pretty imagination, I could come up with better fan fiction then I have read. I just couldn't come up the conviction that I'm personally convinced the story is real and no one else knows as much as I do because of that personal conviction.
I can accept that those things I mention are part of a belief system that someone believes. But that is the limit of it for me. When they start making claims about those things in an attempt to sway others to see it as they do, how is that different than them trying to convince me they are Napoleon?
Like the others below (and like me), you were speculating on a motive, suggesting attention-seeking behavior. I agree, but I don't have a negative reaction to it. He has a lot of imagination but not a lot of rigor to guide it, and has come up with speculations that titillate him and that he wants to share and which he hopes will be taken seriously, but that's just not possible without the rigor.This word game where a request was made to list the objections to Lenski's E. coli study and the response is that the person has objections in three categories isn't what was requested.
I think you're right in some cases, although I don't get that sense in this case. I think he wants acceptance, not rejection. If you'll indulge me, I'd like to repost a few paragraphs on just that from a few months ago:I suspect they are here to proselytise and cry martyr if anyone dares not to believe without question.
I get that as well, but I have a different read on what's going on in such heads:The arrogance and dishonesty of creationists who presume to know more than any researcher on earth is if I may say so, most unchristian.
I don't know what that means. Is AL ancient language? Is it meant to mean a literal language with grammar and vocabulary, or is the word being used to include non-linguistic signals, like neurons communicating with one another across synapses using neurotransmitters?AL was representative, not symbolic.
Do you mean using symbolic language? My dogs think, just not in words. Certainly, if we wind back far enough, we come to prelinguistic primate ancestors (are they all "ancient man," or just ancient H.sapiens?), so if you mean thinking in words, I agree, some ancestors were the first to think in words, before which, none did.Ancient man didn't think.
OK. How about improving this? Why are you using non-standard abbreviations instead of writing words out? Go ahead and use standard abbreviations without explication like USSR and CIA. Then flesh it in with the reason you say so, which hopefully, contains your evidence if you used any. Why do you think you know this? How could it be possible that one learns something and can no longer understand something else?It is impossible to understand AL if you already understand modern language.
If someone presents- as all reatii ists do-Like the others below (and like me), you were speculating on a motive, suggesting attention-seeking behavior. I agree, but I don't have a negative reaction to it. He has a lot of imagination but not a lot of rigor to guide it, and has come up with speculations that titillate him and that he wants to share and which he hopes will be taken seriously, but that's just not possible without the rigor.
I think you're right in some cases, although I don't get that sense in this case. I think he wants acceptance, not rejection. If you'll indulge me, I'd like to repost a few paragraphs on just that from a few months ago:
An interesting phenomenon of creationist apologetics is the failure of the apologist to recognize that his arguments only work on other faith-based thinkers, such as those reading creationist websites. He never seems to notice that when he brings these same arguments to those well trained in the sciences and in critical thinking, that they in every case tell him that his argument is incomplete and/or fallacious, or if he does, attributes it to intellectual dishonesty on the part of his critics rather than that his arguments just don't cut it with the knowledgeable.Here, those arguments are counterproductive to the apologist. Here, his errors are cited. It seems to me that there is zero hope of advancing the creationist agenda in a mixed venue like this one. The creationists routinely are shown their errors and dismissed as unqualified to discuss the science.Or maybe the creationist knows this and doesn't care. Perhaps he sees himself as a martyr in the lions' den doing what he thinks he is commanded to do by his God even in the face of adversity and rejection, which are described as a virtue. It's a common theme in evangelism.
I get that as well, but I have a different read on what's going on in such heads:
In my opinion, it's often Dunning-Kruger, which I've decided is the result of not knowing what critical thinking is or does, which is a little different from thinking that there exists a better way to think and the D-K victim falsely believes he can do it. That was my early understanding of that situation - somebody falsely believing he was flying with the eagles, but now I see at not being aware of the possibility of flight. The evidence for that is how often we read, "That's just your opinion" in response to a sound conclusion.
The bulb lit up for me when discussing Covid morbidity and mortality data, which showed the efficacy of the vaccine to prevent sever illness and death in immunocompetent people, and I got that answer. It suddenly occurred to me that if one is unaware of this way of knowing, all of his or her opinions not arrived at empirically (like favorite restaurant) are faith-based guesses, and such a person assumes that all of everybody's opinions are just gut feeling, hence, "That's just your opinion." This is the kind of person who might say that to his math teacher when corrected on a math problem if he didn't expect saying that to work out badly.
When I had this discussion with another RF poster regarding vaccine efficacy and got the "your opinion" response, I explained that it was more than a mere opinion, that it is possible to have opinions that are demonstrably correct, and it is possible to know that about such ideas, THAT was called arrogant. I was considered arrogant for being willing to say that one can be correct, know it, and know that contradictory opinions are incorrect.
If someone presents- as all reatii ists do-
that they know ToE is false then they are in fact
claiming to know more than any researcher.
I looks like arrogance to me even if they
don't comprehend just how arrogant that is.
I just referred to a term from the philosophy of argumentation called ethos. It refers to the meta-messages a speaker or writer sends his audience in addition to the explicit meaning of his argument, such as does he seem knowledgeable, does he seem sincere, does he seem credible, does he seem trustworthy, does he seem competent, does he show good judgment, does he seem to have a hidden agenda, is he more interested in convincing with impartial argument or persuading with emotive language or specious argumentation, and the like.
If someone presents- as all reatii ists do-
that they know ToE is false then they are in fact
claiming to know more than any researcher.
By and large the people who post here are not "believers in Darwin" in two senses.Not only do the believers here believe in Darwin but they share every single one of his erroneous assumptions.
I've speculated on several possibilities including attention seeking, but that in itself doesn't spawn the negative reaction so much as the contradiction, word games, the inconsistency, empty claims, misuse of terminology, the arrogance and false humility, fantasy and so forth. Put together that is a hard package to deal with. Which is why I have come to the conclusion that there is no point in further engagement. However, I am still enjoying your posts. I appreciate the opportunity to see myself reflected in the view of someone that is good at details, and compassionate in how you approach those things. I admit dealing with posters like that is a challenge and one much different than the average creationist. At least they have a belief that the communicate and recognize. I'm not sure what you do with a person that claims not to believe and to believe in the same paragraph.Like the others below (and like me), you were speculating on a motive, suggesting attention-seeking behavior. I agree, but I don't have a negative reaction to it. He has a lot of imagination but not a lot of rigor to guide it, and has come up with speculations that titillate him and that he wants to share and which he hopes will be taken seriously, but that's just not possible without the rigor.
I agree. I think that acceptance is the goal, but a terrible path and broken down transportation has been chosen to reach it.I think you're right in some cases, although I don't get that sense in this case. I think he wants acceptance, not rejection. If you'll indulge me, I'd like to repost a few paragraphs on just that from a few months ago:
An interesting phenomenon of creationist apologetics is the failure of the apologist to recognize that his arguments only work on other faith-based thinkers, such as those reading creationist websites. He never seems to notice that when he brings these same arguments to those well trained in the sciences and in critical thinking, that they in every case tell him that his argument is incomplete and/or fallacious, or if he does, attributes it to intellectual dishonesty on the part of his critics rather than that his arguments just don't cut it with the knowledgeable.Here, those arguments are counterproductive to the apologist. Here, his errors are cited. It seems to me that there is zero hope of advancing the creationist agenda in a mixed venue like this one. The creationists routinely are shown their errors and dismissed as unqualified to discuss the science.Or maybe the creationist knows this and doesn't care. Perhaps he sees himself as a martyr in the lions' den doing what he thinks he is commanded to do by his God even in the face of adversity and rejection, which are described as a virtue. It's a common theme in evangelism.
I get that. Not simply being unaware that they do not know what they do not know, but not being aware there are actuals to know and with confidence. Still, that arrogance does shine.I get that as well, but I have a different read on what's going on in such heads:
In my opinion, it's often Dunning-Kruger, which I've decided is the result of not knowing what critical thinking is or does, which is a little different from thinking that there exists a better way to think and the D-K victim falsely believes he can do it. That was my early understanding of that situation - somebody falsely believing he was flying with the eagles, but now I see at not being aware of the possibility of flight. The evidence for that is how often we read, "That's just your opinion" in response to a sound conclusion.
The bulb lit up for me when discussing Covid morbidity and mortality data, which showed the efficacy of the vaccine to prevent sever illness and death in immunocompetent people, and I got that answer. It suddenly occurred to me that if one is unaware of this way of knowing, all of his or her opinions not arrived at empirically (like favorite restaurant) are faith-based guesses, and such a person assumes that all of everybody's opinions are just gut feeling, hence, "That's just your opinion." This is the kind of person who might say that to his math teacher when corrected on a math problem if he didn't expect saying that to work out badly.
When I had this discussion with another RF poster regarding vaccine efficacy and got the "your opinion" response, I explained that it was more than a mere opinion, that it is possible to have opinions that are demonstrably correct, and it is possible to know that about such ideas, THAT was called arrogant. I was considered arrogant for being willing to say that one can be correct, know it, and know that contradictory opinions are incorrect.