Science ... NOT God ...

[mikkel_the_dane]

A long track record of arriving succesfully at answers with evidence, while failing to arrive at such answers without evidence.

I don't know of a single instance of trying to explain a certain thing, where reasoning without using evidence provided us with a more accurate answer then reasoning with evidence.

Not taking facts into account when trying to explain a certain thing, doesn't seem like a good method when the goal is to come up with accurate explanations.

Okay, here is evidence for you.
Some humans are superstitious, fact. Some humans believe in God, fact. These humans can believe in God without evidence, fact. I can choose to believe in God, fact. I have chosen to believe in God, fact. All of this is natural, fact.
So what is the evidence you speak of? All of my examples are facts and a part of how the world works.
Explain to me how you have evidence against all these facts?
Are they in some cases without reason, yes - that is a fact.
So again, explain to me how you have evidence against all these facts?

 

[Audie]

Kind of like a married bachelor.

Even a creo can see how that is impossible,
but they just dont get it about themselves.

I posed a question one time about the noted
Dr. K Wise, paleontologist and yec, about the
intellectual dishonesty of his position.

....I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.

Is rejecting, in advance, all evidence that does
not correspond with a preconceived idea
intellectually honest?

All of the creos said he was honest. Can you
figure how they did that?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay, here is evidence for you.
Some humans are superstitious, fact. Some humans believe in God, fact. These humans can believe in God without evidence, fact. I can choose to believe in God, fact. I have chosen to believe in God, fact. All of this is natural, fact.

Great. Your point?

So what is the evidence you speak of?

I was addressing a simple question: what is the workings / origins of religion.
The facts I cited where facts relevant to this question and my answer to it.
The facts where the evidence to support my answer.

The facts YOU are mentioning above, are the facts that we are trying to explain.

Humans believe things on faith (superstition), indeed. BUT WHY?
Humans believe in gods without evidence, indeed. BUT WHY?

Where does the human tendency to believe such things or on such grounds, come from?

That's the question I answered. And I used facts to motivate and rationally support my answer.

Not sure what your objection is................. As usual.

All of my examples are facts and a part of how the world works.

You stated a bunch of facts / observations, yes. So?
Do you also have a point with listing these facts? Or are you just listing them for the sake of listing them?

Explain to me how you have evidence against all these facts?

Explain to me why you think I am arguing against them?
Could it perhaps be yet another manifestation of your lacking reading comprehension skills?

Try finding a single quote of mine where I disagree with any of those facts you mentioned.

Are they in some cases without reason, yes - that is a fact.

None of them are without reason. All of them are based on observation.
We observe people being superstitious, believe things (like gods) without evidence, etc all the time.

So again, explain to me how you have evidence against all these facts?

I don't. Maybe you should go back a couple posts and read the exchange again, because it sounds like you have no clue what is being talked about. Which is strange, since this particular exchange was YOU asking a question and me answering it.

I see 3 plausible explanations:

- your reading comprehension skills have just hit a new low...
- you weren't clear enough in your question formulation
- you are purposefully, and thus dishonestly, moving the goalposts from your initial question


So which of these 3 do you want to be?
Or is there a 4th one that I didn't think off?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Even a creo can see how that is impossible,
but they just dont get it about themselves.

I posed a question one time about the noted
Dr. K Wise, paleontologist and yec, about the
intellectual dishonesty of his position.

....I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.

Is rejecting, in advance, all evidence that does
not correspond with a preconceived idea
intellectually honest?

All of the creos said he was honest. Can you
figure how they did that?

Well... he is honest about how he is going to be intellectually dishonest.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Or is there a 4th one that I didn't think off?

Yes, consider this:
I can fly unaided in earth gravity. Is that a wrong belief?
I can believe in God. Is that a wrong belief?
If one of them is not a wrong belief, then there it is.
If both are wrong beliefs, is it the same kind of wrong?

How about this: To some people it makes sense to believe in God, it works for them. Is that enough for a good reason?

We are doing morality, politics, psychology and sociology in the end - the good life and what good is? That is the 4th one.
And remember this:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Science doesn't make moral judgments
Is it good or bad to believe in a gods?

Science doesn't tell you how to use scientific knowledge
Religion is a superstition. How should I use that knowledge?

See, you and I state all these facts. That is what science do. Explains how the world works and but science can't tell how we ought to live our lives. That is the limit of scientific evidence.
That is the 4th one.

 

[Audie]

Well... he is honest about how he is going to be intellectually dishonest.

That is essentially the creotake on it, though they
wont ever get as far as any of it being dishonest.

They just find id commendable that he is honest.

I tried asking if an embezzler is honest, if he says
he took the money, and if etc, but to no avail.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, you're not even going to acknowledge your confusion about the stuff you misunderstood / strawmanned?

How... unsurprising.

Yes, consider this:
I can fly unaided in earth gravity. Is that a wrong belief?

Yes.
Unaided, you'll fall to earth every time.

I can believe in God. Is that a wrong belief?

Confusing. Clarification required. What "belief" are you asking about here?

The actual belief in god - if that is a wrong belief?
Or rather the belief that people are capable of believing in a god?

As I told you previously....
There is a difference between the mere fact that a person belief something on the one hand, and the accuracy of the belief in question on the other.

Your obfuscation of those two things, by frequently pretending they are the same, is not helping communication at all. In fact, it only adds the smell of intellectual dishonesty and trolling.

If one of them is not a wrong belief, then there it is.
If both are wrong beliefs, is it the same kind of wrong?

I can't answer this until you unambigously clarify the second statement about god beliefs.

How about this: To some people it makes sense to believe in God, it works for them. Is that enough for a good reason?

A good reason for what?

We are doing morality, politics, psychology and sociology in the end - the good life and what good is? That is the 4th one.
And remember this:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Science doesn't make moral judgments
Is it good or bad to believe in a gods?

The point being made that you are insisting on arguing against, has nothing to do with politics, morals, sociology or any of that.

It has to do with the underlying reasons as to why humans have a tendency to hold superstitious beliefs, of which theistic religion is just one manifestation.

Science doesn't tell you how to use scientific knowledge

And neither is it relevant to the point at hand. You seem desperate again to avoid the actual points and burry it again under a big steaming pile of obfuscation, strawmanning and goalpost moving.

Religion is a superstition. How should I use that knowledge?

Up to you, I guess.

See, you and I state all these facts. That is what science do

No. Science also then tries to come up with testable explanatory models to explain said facts.
Facts by themselves are just data points; observations.

Explains how the world works and but science can't tell how we ought to live our lives.

I heavily disagree, as science provides us very much with the data and tools to be able to organize our lives for the better.

Having said that, this discussion isn't relevant here at all, since the points are about the underpinnings of superstitious beliefs, the reasons why we engage in them. It's not about morals or about what constitutes the "good life" or how to organize societies in order to make humans flourish.

Instead, it is just about explaining why humans have a tendency to hold superstitious beliefs.
That's a scientific question, with a scientific answer.

That is the limit of scientific evidence.
That is the 4th one.

The 4th one at this points, seems to be dishonest obfuscation, strawmanning and plain old trolling.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Up to you, I guess.
...

That is the fact of the matter. It is up to me if I believe in God and up to you, that you don't.

You can frame it all you want and try to control how to talk about it, but it won't stop me for doing what I do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just FYI - when my son was 5&6 years old, he got a kick out of parroting me like this, or vice versa, and it would go on for a little while. Now, at 7 years old, he's apparently out-grown it, and finds it terribly annoying when anyone does it, and no longer does it himself. Again... he's 7.

At least children grow out of it. Childish adults. Who knows?

 

[Wandering Monk]

Even a creo can see how that is impossible,
but they just dont get it about themselves.

I posed a question one time about the noted
Dr. K Wise, paleontologist and yec, about the
intellectual dishonesty of his position.

....I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.

Is rejecting, in advance, all evidence that does
not correspond with a preconceived idea
intellectually honest?

All of the creos said he was honest. Can you
figure how they did that?

Then you have Ken Ham. 'What would cause you to change your mind?'

 

[Jollybear]

Just FYI - when my son was 5&6 years old, he got a kick out of parroting me like this, or vice versa, and it would go on for a little while. Now, at 7 years old, he's apparently out-grown it, and finds it terribly annoying when anyone does it, and no longer does it himself. Again... he's 7.

All you guys have is nothing but to troll and project and ad hom those you disagree with. Pretend evidence is on your side and thats frankly.....it.

 

[Darkstorn]

All you guys have is nothing but to troll and project and ad hom those you disagree with.

And all you can do is a tantrum and repeat stuff like a 5-year-old. You don't get to cry "ad hom" after your show last page. You refused to engage in the discussion.

So talk about trolling and projecting. Take your meds, and realize it was YOU who was trolling and projecting.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I note that once again, you make no acknowledgement AT ALL about you strawmanning my post.
Also not a single question answered that was asked in the post you are replying to.

Dodging till the cows come home....

That is the fact of the matter. It is up to me if I believe in God and up to you, that you don't.

Sure, if you don't mind holding on to superstitious beliefs, that is entirely your choice.

You can frame it all you want and try to control how to talk about it, but it won't stop me for doing what I do.

And you can dodge all points raised, completely fail to have an ounce of intellectual honest by not acknowledging that you were arguing strawmen, move goals posts from here to Tokyo and burry yourself under a pile of semantic obfuscation.... But it won't stop me from pointing it out every single time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All you guys have is nothing but to troll and project and ad hom those you disagree with. Pretend evidence is on your side and thats frankly.....it.

Pot, kettle is calling...

 

[ratiocinator]

Pretend evidence is on your side and thats frankly.....it.

So - why do you think this "pretend evidence" is accepted by almost all of the scientists who study the relevant disciplines, and of the tiny, tiny minority who think it's "pretend", almost all have an obvious religious vested interest in it being wrong?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I note that once again, you make no acknowledgement AT ALL about you strawmanning my post.
Also not a single question answered that was asked in the post you are replying to.

Dodging till the cows come home....




Sure, if you don't mind holding on to superstitious beliefs, that is entirely your choice.



And you can dodge all points raised, completely fail to have an ounce of intellectual honest by not acknowledging that you were arguing strawmen, move goals posts from here to Tokyo and burry yourself under a pile of semantic obfuscation.... But it won't stop me from pointing it out every single time.

Your position is intellectual and mine is not. Of course that is your claim and your subjective framing. That is the point, I am subjective and you think you can avoid it by dancing around with words. You can't. You interpret and evaluate the world in a subjective manner. How do I know that? Because I can do it differently and if what was going on was like the example with flying and gravity, then this couldn't happen. But it can.
You have a subjective standard for evaluating human behavior and that is it. So do I, I just say, that what I do, is subjective.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your position is intellectual and mine is not. Of course that is your claim and your subjective framing.

Intellectually honest.
Reading comprehension again. Or more dishonesty, if it is done on purpose to leave out that second word. The presence of the word "honest" in "intellectually honest" is not the same as mere "intellectual".

An intellectually honest person, for starters, wouldn't strawman an argument and then completely ignore it when it gets pointed out, as if nothing happened. An intellectually honest person has no need for such tactics and would just acknowledge the point and admit to the mistake.

But not you.... you simply completely ignore when it gets pointed out. And then later, the exposing of the dishonesty is burried under a few pages of derailing nonsense, then you'll just go back to the same strawman until it is pointed out again and so it continues.

This isn't the first time I have observed this while conversing with you. You've been stuck in this loop for quite some time already.


And again we also see that communication is impossible or dificult at best, if one side consistenly insists on misuse of words. Why is it that this is a constant problem, present in literally almost every post, when conversing with you??

That is the point, I am subjective and you think you can avoid it by dancing around with words

Projection mode enabled, it seems.
I'm not the one dancing around with words.

I actually just clicked back through this line of posts using the arrow links in the quotes. Your replies are laughable considering the posts you are replying to. Post after post I make a bunch of points, which you in your replies all dodge and ignore and instead starts bickering about something irrelevant by literally dancing with my words and strawmanning them.

It's like a really bad joke.

I invite you, and readers, to do the same: click through this exchange of posts and just look at what you are replying to what. It's absolutely ridiculous.

You have a subjective standard for evaluating human behavior and that is it.

And once again, you bring it back to this silly pet peeve point of yours, which is completely irrelevant to what is actually being discussed.

So do I, I just say, that what I do, is subjective.

What you do, is ridiculous and nonsensical.

 

[Jollybear]

And all you can do is a tantrum and repeat stuff like a 5-year-old. You don't get to cry "ad hom" after your show last page. You refused to engage in the discussion.

So talk about trolling and projecting. Take your meds, and realize it was YOU who was trolling and projecting.

No, on the contrary. Its me that wants to discuss the evidence and subject without making it about the person.

But, since the folks in question here want to make it about me, i too shall make it about them.

 

[Jollybear]

Pot, kettle is calling...

That would be them.

 

[Darkstorn]

Reading comprehension again.

This is the reason i stopped responding to him like almost a week ago. He seems to fail at reading comprehension every time there's more than 1 word.

This led me to this following conclusion: His entire philosophical view is BASED on him lacking comprehension of the people he's arguing against, what they're saying, or what he's saying in return. It's like... A guy who think he's an awesome philosopher, yet his awareness seems to be on the level of a high dyslexic.

It's sad. Not funny at all.