Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Wildswanderer]

Ahh...so you don't know what it means to be an atheist.

An atheist is something who lacks the belief in a God. So, for example, someone who does not believe in Thor is atheist concerning Thor. They may think that Thor is a possibility, but they have not been convinced that Thor actually exists.

An agnostic is someone who doesn't think it is possible to *know* whether God exists or not. So, if you don't think it is possible to know whether Thor exists or not, then you are agnostic when it comes to Thor.

Now, most people that are atheist or agnostic use the term for all deities: Thor, Yahweh, Athena, Apollo, etc. Otherwise most people would be atheist to some degree.

I have pointed out situations where I would start to believe in a creator God. But, at this point, I don't believe in any such. I find the evidence scanty, unreliable, and poor. So I do not believe.

"a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

Lacking belief means you don't believe, not that you kind of, sort of believe sometimes. As I said if you don't know for sure, you are an agnostic.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So you also don't understand what Darwin said, nor the modern theory of evolution.

Darwin *speculated* that all life has a common ancestor. he did not regard that as proven, by a long shot.

Since his time, there has been a LOT more evidence pointing in that direction. But, we don't know specifics, so to that degree it is still speculation.

But that is not necessary for the theory of evolution. Evolution was established before Darwin did his work. What Darwin did is give a mechanism for how evolution happens (others were proposed before him). That mechanism has been merged with our understanding of genetics (and *nobody* understood genetics when Darwin was around) to give the modern synthesis.

We have seen speciation in the lab and in the real world. Deniers that don't understand what evolution says will say something along the line of 'it is still a lizard'. But all that shows is that they don't understand the basics.

Lol..." You just don't understand." ( While you confirm that indeed there's much speculation.) How predictable.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The standard of right and wrong is human well being. Killing someone does not promote that. Easy

There is no such standard if we are meat robots. There's only what we are programmed to do. You can't blame a robot for carrying out its program. If it's program is to torture kittens, I can't say that's wrong or right. It has no other option.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The basis of morality is Thinking and Caring.

You are still assuming Free will.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, we *disagree*. Even with no God, there is plenty of reason to say that killing is not good.

And, if God said that killing was good, he would be wrong.

The standard of right and wrong is human well being. Killing someone does not promote that. Easy.

The basis of morality is Thinking and Caring. Care about those around you and the effect you have on others. And Think about what you do and how it impacts the world around you. Compassion and a sense of Fairness are other good moral values. And atheists understand this at least as well as theists. Sometimes, it seems atheists understand this better than many theists.

Well, good points.
But, sometimes, it seems some atheists understand this better for an inter-subjective better than some theists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is no such standard if we are meat robots. There's only what we are programmed to do. You can't blame a robot for carrying out its program. If it's program is to torture kittens, I can't say that's wrong or right. It has no other option.

I am a meat robot and I will carry out my program and for relevant cases killing another human and for others help another human, even if I have no free will and no access to objective morality. And that makes sense to me, but matter how much you claim it subjectively doesn't make sense to you. That is how it works in the everyday world.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I am a meat robot and I will carry out my program and for relevant cases killing another human and for others help another human, even if I have no free will and no access to objective morality. And that makes sense to me, but matter how much you claim it subjectively doesn't make sense to you. That is how it works in the everyday world.

You are still assuming you have the freedom to choose.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are still assuming you have the freedom to choose.

No, I don't. I accept no metaphysical free will. I don't have to, because it doesn't male sense to me and thus I don't believe in it.

 

[Polymath257]

You are still assuming Free will.

No, actually, I am not. Free will isn't relevant as I see it.

 

[Polymath257]

There is no such standard if we are meat robots. There's only what we are programmed to do. You can't blame a robot for carrying out its program. If it's program is to torture kittens, I can't say that's wrong or right. It has no other option.

Wrong. One aspect is that we can modify our programming through training. The variability allowed by our genetics is wide enough to allow for a great deal of differences in actual behavior. And, those difference are determined by what happens in our brains: in other words, they are determined *by us*. We are the ones that choose between perceived possible outcomes. And that choice is a crucial step in what actually happens.

So, yes, I can indeed say that a program that doesn't modify its behavior appropriately is doing wrong, just as the chat bots that go racist can be said to be doing wrong.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Wrong. One aspect is that we can modify our programming through training. The variability allowed by our genetics is wide enough to allow for a great deal of differences in actual behavior. And, those difference are determined by what happens in our brains: in other words, they are determined *by us*. We are the ones that choose between perceived possible outcomes. And that choice is a crucial step in what actually happens.

So, yes, I can indeed say that a program that doesn't modify its behavior appropriately is doing wrong, just as the chat bots that go racist can be said to be doing wrong.

Don't get me started on metacognition.

 

[Polymath257]

You are still assuming you have the freedom to choose.

No. The assumption is that *we* (sometimes) choose: that the choice happens in our brains. That the causal nexus is within our heads for some situations. And that is clearly true.

And yes, we are then responsible for the choice we make *because* it is in our heads that the choice happens. It is how we have programmed ourselves and how we respond to our environment that determines whether or not we do actions that harm others and thereby whether we need to have corrective actions taken.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. The assumption is that *we* (sometimes) choose: that the choice happens in our brains. That the causal nexus is within our heads for some situations. And that is clearly true.

And yes, we are then responsible for the choice we make *because* it is in our heads that the choice happens. It is how we have programmed ourselves and how we respond to our environment that determines whether or not we do actions that harm others and thereby whether we need to have corrective actions taken.

Well, we are not responsible. We treat each other as responsible in some cases. The "are" is not a fact, it is a norm. I do believe in it, but it is not a fact.

 

[Polymath257]

There is no such standard if we are meat robots. There's only what we are programmed to do. You can't blame a robot for carrying out its program. If it's program is to torture kittens, I can't say that's wrong or right. It has no other option.

Actually, if we had programmed it to take care of kittens and it then starts to kill them, we *would* say that it was doing it wrong and that we need to reprogram it.

Our education 'programs us'. We learn (hopefully) how to deal with others and how to contribute to society. Those that do not learn this properly need to be 'reprogrammed', which is what an ideal justice system would do.

Ideally, after being convicted of a crime, the punishment or rehabilitation is sufficient that no new crimes are then committed: the person learns from the mistakes and punishment.

That way, they do not 'choose' to do that type of thing again: their programming has changed enough that they no longer are inclined to do those things.

It would be like taking that kitten program and adjusting the parameters so that it keeps the kittens safe u=instead of killing them. And that would be a promotion of kitten well being.

The only difference is that people are programmed through parents, friends, society, and genetics. That programming changes through time with education and training.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, we are not responsible. We treat each other as responsible in some cases. The "are" is not a fact, it is a norm. I do believe in it, but it is not a fact.

Yes, most societal standards are conventions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Actually, if we had programmed it to take care of kittens and it then starts to kill them, we *would* say that it was doing it wrong and that we need to reprogram it.

Our education 'programs us'. We learn (hopefully) how to deal with others and how to contribute to society. Those that do not learn this properly need to be 'reprogrammed', which is what an ideal justice system would do.

Ideally, after being convicted of a crime, the punishment or rehabilitation is sufficient that no new crimes are then committed: the person learns from the mistakes and punishment.

That way, they do not 'choose' to do that type of thing again: their programming has changed enough that they no longer are inclined to do those things.

It would be like taking that kitten program and adjusting the parameters so that it keeps the kittens safe u=instead of killing them. And that would be a promotion of kitten well being.

The only difference is that people are programmed through parents, friends, society, and genetics. That programming changes through time with education and training.

Well, all upbringing and culture is programming, not just education. And education can be social and not just formal as you note.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Genesis doesn't mention the SNOWBALL EARTH either, or the LATE GREAT BOMBARDMENT.

Correct. Nor would I expect it to at a time before man could discern that such things had occurred - unless Genesis were authored by an author of the universe, which is the claim of believers. Remember where this began - with you showing how prescient scripture was by writing a list of four elements of the Genesis creation story that looked like something science might agree with. I pointed out that that list didn't resemble the scientific account of the evolution of the cosmos. It lacked universal expansion, inflation, and the formation of galaxies as part of my argument. You've added two more things not present in the account. These are evidence that the author of those stories only knew what was knowable at the time as the atheists suspects.

Genesis isn't a text book

It's the ancient equivalent, before there were textbooks, public schools, and universities. Like them, the scrolls were formalized instructional sources used to teach generation after generation what the elders deemed an essential education, which at that time wouldn't have been much more than religious instruction.

It is also said that the Genesis is not science, and the answer is the same. It's what preceded science before there was science, and attempted to perform the same function - explain how the world got to be the way it is. Before there was a method for studying the world, people just guessed how it got to be the way it is. Dozens or hundreds of creation myths were generated by an equal number of cultures, all of them guesses based on essentially no understanding of the world, and all of them far from the modern scientific account for obvious reasons.

Was it this thread in which there was a discussion of ancient morality as depicted in the Old Testament, New Testament, and modernity? The apologists were toggling back and forth between naturalistic and supernaturalistic explanations. At times we were told that God's moral truths are perfect, absolute, and timeless, and at other times, when moral failings of the past such as the practice of slavery were brought up, we heard about how that was another time with different circumstances.

You're doing something similar here by at once holding up this account as evidence of divine revelation and then explaining its shortcomings with comments such as it's not a textbook. The skeptic assumes that it is the work of men alone, and expects the pre-science to be wrong, and the older morals to be less evolved. The believer seems to like to borrow from that thinking when the human fingerprints in the teaching are revealed - 'that was then, this is now' - but then toggles back to this idea that the book is filled with timeless truths that transcend human ability and reveal a deity.

How do YOU know there is no transcendence or meaning to life? Where is your rebuttal?

There is transcendence and meaning to life, but as far as we know, not in the supernatural sense you mean. Self-actualization is personal transcendence, a kind of pulling oneself up by the bootstraps and exceeding one's former self. And meaning comes from within.

Incidentally, in the process of critical thinking, both arguments and bare claims can be rebutted, but the rebuttal to a bare claim can be as simple as there being no evidentiary support for the claim and therefore no reason to believe it. It's essentially a non sequitur fallacy in the sense that the claim is not supported by what preceded it, in the case of a bare claim, nothing. It's not a sound conclusion. That's the whole rebuttal, and its the same one for every bare claim. When an flawed argument is presented, a custom rebuttal is required, one that addresses the argument being rebutted, but not with bare claims. You've no doubt seen Hitchens' Razor, a pithy embodiment of that position: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If one isn't sure there's no God he's not an atheist obviously.

That's a matter of definition. Webster made a distinction between atheism and agnosticism that persists today such that a person could be called one but not both, but atheists have revised that to comport better with their reality, namely, that most atheists, including me, are agnostic about gods.

I've told you many times that gods remain on my candidate list for the origin of our universe, right along with the multiverse, something from nothing, and that the universe had no first moment. So what would YOU call a person like that? I'm not sure that there's no god. If your definition of atheist doesn't include people like me because we won't assert that gods are nonexistent, it's not one I can use.

The whole basis of Darwin's theory can't be observed. He proposed that all species derive from one or a few species...we cannot observe that happening.

You're making a common error here about what observation means in science. It doesn't mean to observe the past, nor to reproduce the past in the present and observe that. It means to draw inferences observing what is here and now. Likewise with reproducibility. One needn't reproduce the past, just experiments.

So why the double standard? Why does the theory of evolution have a different standard for belief for you than a creationist hypothesis? Why do you voice these objections against the one but give the other a pass? Rhetorical question, no answer needed. Your purpose is to promote the theistic perspective, not to demonstrate its correctness, so you say whatever you think accomplishes that without regard for the double standard, which is a special pleading fallacy.

Wisdom is discerning what's true regardless of the outcome, it has nothing to do with finding happiness.

That's not a useful definition for me. Knowledge is the collection of ideas considered correct. I don't call that wisdom. As I've explained, for me, intelligence is the ability to recognize and solve problems, such as how to make money or attract dates. Wisdom is a subset of knowledge, namely, correct ideas on what things will bring lasting happiness and how to avoid avoidable mistakes that bring unhappiness. It is knowledge used to solve the problem how best to live to be happy. Happy in this context means more than happy like at a birthday party, but more like a sense of fulfillment and freedom from dysphoric states such as self-loathing, shame and remorse.

In short, intelligence is knowing how to get what you want, and wisdom is knowing what to want to find happiness. If you think about it, isn't that your definition, too? Don't you consider faith in God wisdom because its the path to fulfillment and heavenly bliss? You're pursuing happiness as you imagine it and according to what you believe is real and how the universe works, just like me, and you call that wisdom, just like me.

 

[PruePhillip]

Correct. Nor would I expect it to at a time before man could discern that such things had occurred - unless Genesis were authored by an author of the universe, which is the claim of believers. Remember where this began - with you showing how prescient scripture was by writing a list of four elements of the Genesis creation story that looked like something science might agree with. I pointed out that that list didn't resemble the scientific account of the evolution of the cosmos. It lacked universal expansion, inflation, and the formation of galaxies as part of my argument. You've added two more things not present in the account. These are evidence that the author of those stories only knew what was knowable at the time as the atheists suspects.

What are the 'two more things not present in the account' ?

The below picture is either
1 - an image from Genesis 1
2 - a reconstruction of the early earth by scientists.

It''s number 2.
But Genesis did not synthesise this from what was already known.

1 - Continental evolution ca 1960's.
2 - 2005 discovery of oceanic earth.
3 - 2020 a consensus that life began on land.
4 - 2021 the first evidence of an earth as a dark cloud planet like Venus.

 

[F1fan]

Landing on the moon won't give me any special truth. Find it funny to read of astronauts who claim it did. Certainly I would be changed by the experience - I was in a luna simulation once, and that was awesome and scary - but new truths? Nah.

At least the USA actually landed on the moon unlike what Christians claim in their basic set of beliefs.

I don't know how old you are but I remember when Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon for the first time and it was a huge accomplishment of the USA. That DID give us pride as a nation. Of course this is the sort of "pride by association" that theists have. You don't accomplish anything yourself by belonging to a group, but it satisfies your need to belong to a tribe. This is why nationalism has appealed to so many conservative Christians in recent years. More tribalism, more pride by association.

Quote - "Can any of you demonstrate your religious group has the truth? Of course not." Of course you can. Those Christians murdering Jews are not displaying any truth because they have no truth.

But as we observe religion doesn't bring out the best in people. Religions only offer a platform of belief like a huge buffet of ideas, and believers pick and choose what they like. If it's bigotry greed, well Christianity has sects that offer the to believers. Typically if a Christian is moral and decent, and actually follows what jesus taught, they were good people already.

Truth is carefully defined in the Gospels - that of conforming to the image of God's own son. We are given doctrine and we are given a standard of behavior that leaves no wiggle room.

And then you have Paul and all his ideas about what Christianity should be. And how are the Gospels truth when we know that aren't four separate writings by four different people. They were all based on one document and they have details that differ. Plus, none of what Christians believe of the Bible is implausible and not based on fact. None of the "Jesus as savior" story makes any sense.

One such account was Jesus healing the servant's ear when Jesus was being arrested - so if you seek to harm another person, FOR WHATEVER REASON, then you violate the standard set in scripture. That's 'truth.' If a Muslim should show such observance, or a Hindu, then that's a good sign of approaching that truth.

Islam has a teaching of doing no harm. And I sure don't hear Christians talk about doing no harm to others, especially conservatives who seem dead set on causing harm in one way or another. Looking at the politics of the GOP we see massive levels of harm being dished out against gay and trans people, against women's reproductive rights, not cooperating with gun safety bills, rampant gerrymandering to steal representation against liberal communities, etc. You might be different that the norm, but you can't just turn your back on Christians who don't share your views as if you are Jesus yourself and can wave them off. These Christians are very prevalent and if you do nothing to call them out then you are nothing like Jesus who fought against injustice.