Science ... NOT God ...

[Jollybear]

Lost track of my own thread .... Sheesh!



None that is convincing.



That is because it isn't convincing.



Just because something appears designed, doesn't mean that it actually is.



If DNA were evidence for god, all geneticists and relate sciences would be creationists.



None that are reputable.



Substitute "hallucinations" and "pareidolia".



Sorry. Don't agree.



Like "The Little Boy Who Saw Heaven", who was famous among Christian circles, and later in life recanted his "testimony" and asserted being pressured into it by the adults in his life? Sure, that "blossomed".



Oh? Care to share?



Yep. That's how Creationism works; futile attempts to attack what it doesn't understand So you want a claim to attack because you can provide no evidence to substantiate your own
OK.
I'll bite.
"DNA arises from natural chemical processes, some known, some not known; and as they arise from natural chemical processes, there is no logical reason to assume an intelligence behind it".



That's why I engage in these discussions. I don't expect an overnight reversal or a few points of logic or a sound argument to topple years of indoctrination over an internet forum. But it becomes a part of their experience.

Ok....let me say this....almost everytime in the past that i went DEEPER into discussing this evidence that does convince me but i dont convince them of it, nor do they convince me its wrong; now, thats fine and all, BUT, what usually happens is most of them make it about me, rather then the subject. In otherwords, ad hominems. I just dont have the patience for it anymore.

The "rules" of the forum dont seam to work to stop this.

However, if YOU can or are able to hold back and keep all of this about the subject and NOT me, i will go deeper into your questions.

If you can agree with that, sign on the dotted line. Signing does NOT mean you will be agreeing with my conclusions about said evidence.

Deal?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

None of it is relevant to the answer I gave to your question, all those posts ago.

I wanted to figure out how religion works, if I remember correctly. So since religion is in part about beliefs, I start with beliefs now, since you point out that I went of the question. I accept that, I did that, so back on track.
Now if religion is not in part about beliefs, then make your case.
If it is about how brains can be irrational and rational, then I agree some brains are irrational. Now if you want to do something about that, then it involves that you have a subjective purpose.

Now if you want to do it in a natural frame, it gets tougher. Is religion directly tied to biology or is it a byproduct? We get to the psychology of e.g. how humans deal with the knowledge that they will die. What they do for comfort and so on? Of course there is the purely irrational aspects as errors in cognition, but that is only a part of it.

So again, besides the errors in cognition there is this:

Religion, human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. It is also commonly regarded as consisting of the way people deal with ultimate concerns about their lives and their fate after death. In many traditions, this relation and these concerns are expressed in terms of one’s relationship with or attitude toward gods or spirits; in more humanistic or naturalistic forms of religion, they are expressed in terms of one’s relationship with or attitudes toward the broader human community or the natural world. In many religions, texts are deemed to have scriptural status, and people are esteemed to be invested with spiritual or moral authority. Believers and worshippers participate in and are often enjoined to perform devotional or contemplative practices such as prayer, meditation, or particular rituals. Worship, moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are among the constituent elements of the religious life.

religion | Definition & List of Religions

If you think you can remove all of that simply by removing errors in cognition, I like to hear about that.

 

[Darkstorn]

Again, what part of i dont give a rats *** anymore to anything your insecure bull**** sekf has to say? **** off.

Go pester some other sucker who has the patience to deal with you all. My patience has run out.

When you explode like this, it's you who seems insecure. Go see a doctor.

/E:

The "rules" of the forum dont seam to work to stop this.

You seem to be suffering from serious delusions here. The rules are quite clear, but it seems like your understanding of the rules is the problem. Another problem would be not understanding your own actions. That's a big problem. You're doing projecting the same way a paranoid schizophrenic does it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I wanted to figure out how religion works, if I remember correctly. So since religion is in part about beliefs, I start with beliefs now, since you point out that I went of the question. I accept that, I did that, so back on track.
Now if religion is not in part about beliefs, then make your case

The question was how does religion work (as in: why do humans tend to be religious), not "what is religion".

If it is about how brains can be irrational and rational, then I agree some brains are irrational. Now if you want to do something about that, then it involves that you have a subjective purpose.

Now if you want to do it in a natural frame, it gets tougher. Is religion directly tied to biology or is it a byproduct? We get to the psychology of e.g. how humans deal with the knowledge that they will die. What they do for comfort and so on? Of course there is the purely irrational aspects as errors in cognition, but that is only a part of it.

So again, besides the errors in cognition there is this:

religion | Definition & List of Religions

If you think you can remove all of that simply by removing errors in cognition, I like to hear about that.

The question was how does religions work, why do you humans tend to be religious.

My answer was that throughout the animal kingdom, we see superstitious beliefs arise and being upheld to various extents as a result of being prone to engage in false positives and infusing agency in random events.
As such, being prone to such cognition errors forms a feeding ground from wich religions are born and with which religions are being upheld.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. It's consistent with the evidence and observations and has explanatory power.

What's the problem?

 

[Jollybear]

When you explode like this, it's you who seems insecure. Go see a doctor.

/E:



You seem to be suffering from serious delusions here. The rules are quite clear, but it seems like your understanding of the rules is the problem. Another problem would be not understanding your own actions. That's a big problem. You're doing projecting the same way a paranoid schizophrenic does it.

Go troll someone else. Like i said i got no more patience for you.

If i dont wanna engage with you and you keep doing so, what do you think your accomplishing?

 

[Darkstorn]

Go troll someone else. Like i said i got no more patience for you.

Yes, but you are now faced with a problem: I have endless patience for you. You might think i'm trolling because of your inability to see other viewpoints. But here's what i'm actually doing: Noticing, and publicly notifying everyone, that you're projecting, throwing tantrums, acting like a child and being, well, a troll.

I don't even care for your actual argument. First i want you to follow the etiquette, if not the rules, of a debate. At the moment, you're making it into a kindergarten shouting match. And it's pathetically sad.

On a more serious note, whenever i'm talking about your mental health, i am actually being serious. I studied psychology and you show some of the signs of a paranoid delusional person, or a schizophrenic. A debate forum is not the most valuable venue for people suffering from those issues. You'll feel any sort of non-agreement is going to be instantly an attack. This is the way you behaved here.

 

[Jollybear]

Yes, but you are now faced with a problem: I have endless patience for you. You might think i'm trolling because of your inability to see other viewpoints. But here's what i'm actually doing: Noticing, and publicly notifying everyone, that you're projecting, throwing tantrums, acting like a child and being, well, a troll.

I don't even care for your actual argument. First i want you to follow the etiquette, if not the rules, of a debate. At the moment, you're making it into a kindergarten shouting match. And it's pathetically sad.

On a more serious note, whenever i'm talking about your mental health, i am actually being serious. I studied psychology and you show some of the signs of a paranoid delusional person, or a schizophrenic. A debate forum is not the most valuable venue for people suffering from those issues. You'll feel any sort of non-agreement is going to be instantly an attack. This is the way you behaved here.

What do you think your accomplishing by saying this utter, mind blowing nonsense to me?

 

[Darkstorn]

What do you think your accomplishing by saying this utter, mind blowing nonsense to me?

Light entertainment.

I expect never to be able to change peoples' minds, nor do i feel like i want to. At best, i can derive entertainment from them.

I can also make friendly suggestions. Internet forums don't seem to be the best place for your peace of mind. You say you don't care, but you feel having to reply almost compulsively.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The question was how does religion work (as in: why do humans tend to be religious), not "what is religion".



The question was how does religions work, why do you humans tend to be religious.

My answer was that throughout the animal kingdom, we see superstitious beliefs arise and being upheld to various extents as a result of being prone to engage in false positives and infusing agency in random events.
As such, being prone to such cognition errors forms a feeding ground from wich religions are born and with which religions are being upheld.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. It's consistent with the evidence and observations and has explanatory power.

What's the problem?

That there might be more to religion than that.
So we end here:
Human behavior: religion | Definition & List of Religions
Religion is not a thing, it is a set of human behavior, that might be more than cognition errors.

 

[Darkstorn]

Religion is not a thing, it is a set of human behavior, that might be more than cognition errors.

I guess you have a very different definition for "thing" than i do, because that sure sounds like a thing to me.

Religions are rhetorical-philosophical frameworks, ones that require less philosophy and rhetoric from the follower than the guy who devised it. Now, you'll not care about this and will go on about subjectivity again, but that's just you missing the point, once more.

You trying to reduce everything, is a sign of solipsism. Either the mental issue, or the philosophical view. The fact that you don't actually know what solipsism(or even what certain other philosophical views like metaphysical or methodological naturalism) is, or the fact that you are ill-equipped to even understand what it is, would point out that it's a mental issue. You are simply not aware that so far, in 100% of the cases, you've come into threads and tried to talk about subjectivity.

Anyone who understands debate understands subjectivity and objectivity, you're not in a position to educate. First, you have to stop acting like a dyslexic person who goes on around misunderstanding everything others are saying to him.

Here's what you're doing to debates: Nothing. You're trying to reduce everything to "it's subjective."

In order for people to actually take you seriously, you need to follow the rules and or etiquette for debate. They are NOT subjective. You need to accept that in order for things to function as they are, and for as many people to understand things as possible, things need to follow accepted standards.

You trying to muddy the waters does nothing except feed your ego.

You'll miss the point of this so hard, i'm not sure why i wrote it. Last time i had a serious discussion with you, it felt like arguing with an egotistical narcissist who ignored things he found too difficult, and focused on tangential issues that are issues only to himself.

Your behaviour is 100% analogous to an amateur philosopher. You forgot the first warning: Most of them are bad at philosophy. Some even worse than you. But on these forums you're definitely pretty bad. You don't even understand what consistency means.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...You're trying to reduce everything to "it's subjective."
...

Sure, everything is subjective and I control everything.
Now do you feel better now?
Everything is not subjective nor it is objective.
I don't know, I mean I can reduce everything down to these categories;

1. Objective, physical and other natural science areas.
2. Intersubjective, social and so on
3. Subjective, the individual.

Now #1 gives rise to #2 and they together form #3, but I can't reduce everything down to just one of them.
What about you?

 

[Jollybear]

Light entertainment.

Light entertainment. I see.....so, frustrating me gives you light entertainment. Boy, that says alot. That also is what trollers do. They seek entertainment from frustrating others online. Amazing.

I expect never to be able to change peoples' minds, nor do i feel like i want to. At best, i can derive entertainment from them.

Man....what an interesting confession. If you dont WANT to persuade me of your views and are just seeking intertainment out of my frustration, yea, thats trolling.

I can also make friendly suggestions. Internet forums don't seem to be the best place for your peace of mind. You say you don't care, but you feel having to reply almost compulsively.

Yea, i dont care what you believe about me. Im just trying to figure out why you feel you need to do this "entertainment" online.

 

[Darkstorn]

Sure, everything is subjective and I control everything.
Now do you feel better now?
Everything is not subjective nor it is objective.
I don't know, I mean I can reduce everything down to these categories;

1. Objective, physical and other natural science areas.
2. Intersubjective, social and so on
3. Subjective, the individual.

Now #1 gives rise to #2 and they together form #3, but I can't reduce everything down to just one of them.
What about you?

Problem: You accidentally reduced everything into "objective, physical and other natural science areas." You clearly say that it leads to 2, and 1 and 2 make for 3. That IS reducing things, just the WRONG way for your point. So try again, please.

This time don't try to reinforce my view.

/E: Fyi, i don't think anyone can reduce things like you just did. They can try, but they can't show evidence for their view. That's the reason metaphysics hasn't totally died off yet: Because objective, verifiable evidence seemingly ISN'T accounting for _every single thing_ at least as far as we know YET. A smart scientist, and a smart philosopher would react in the face of reducing things into the barest essentials:

It's hasty. We don't have enough data yet. This is why solipsism is NOT falsifiable. It makes a good point. Something we can't disprove. It could even be right. But it's premature to make a decision either way. Either we ARE living in the Matrix, or we aren't.

The real answer to the REAL difficult questions: We don't really know, or we should not ask those things yet. Buddhists go for this view most often.

 

[Darkstorn]

Light entertainment. I see.....so, frustrating me gives you light entertainment. Boy, that says alot. That also is what trollers do. They seek entertainment from frustrating others online. Amazing.

No, i'm saying the reason i'm posting to begin with is light entertainment. Your reaction has nothing to do with it, and i actually would prefer for you to feel better. I'm trying to say that showing delusional behavior is going to be taken as delusional behavior.

Man....what an interesting confession. If you dont WANT to persuade me of your views and are just seeking intertainment out of my frustration, yea, thats trolling.

Yes, but you making a straw man is also trolling.

Yea, i dont care what you believe about me. Im just trying to figure out why you feel you need to do this "entertainment" online.

It doesn't involve that much trying. Either you're doing it for entertainment too, or your self-admitted frustrations. I say both are valid, i'm just saying my way is better for my mental well-being.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Problem: You accidentally reduced everything into "objective, physical and other natural science areas." You clearly say that it leads to 2, and 1 and 2 make for 3. That IS reducing things, just the WRONG way for your point. So try again, please.

This time don't try to reinforce my view.

No, it is correct way. Everything else caused me, but there are aspects of me, which can't be reduced to everything else.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

What part of i dont give a rats *** to anything else you say dont you understand? **** off

You keep reading though, don't you?

 

[Darkstorn]

No, it is correct way. Everything else caused me, but there are aspects of me, which can't be reduced to everything else.

I added a long edit to my post. You're being premature in your own subjectivity with any kind of reduction. You're taking assumptions and biases and treating them as "truth." That's really all it is.

The only reduction that works is to reduce the questions and answers regarding these things in your own head. If something is unknowable based on current understanding, then it's simply premature to make a decision of any kind.

You can't know that reality is either objective OR subjective. But you do have to be consistent in your argument. Pick one, stick with it, and use that as the basis for your philosophy. You reducing things is counter-productive for either philosophical view, and is just muddying the waters.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I added a long edit to my post. You're being premature in your own subjectivity with any kind of reduction. You're taking assumptions and biases and treating them as "truth." That's really all it is.

The only reduction that works is to reduce the questions and answers regarding these things in your own head. If something is unknowable based on current understanding, then it's simply premature to make a decision of any kind.

You can't know that reality is either objective OR subjective. But you do have to be consistent in your argument. Pick one, stick with it, and use that as the basis for your philosophy. You reducing things is counter-productive for either philosophical view, and is just muddying the waters.

No, reality is objective and subjective and I do know that.

 

[Darkstorn]

No, reality is objective and subjective and I do know that.

Careful, your ego is showing. Socrates was considered smart because he was literally the only philosopher of the time who went on long tirades about how LITTLE he really knew, and how much he actually just assumed and guessed just like everyone else.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

No less intelligent than the "average" atheist.

What's funny is, I didn't even mention levels of intelligence. You're likely not to believe me... but just go have a look. All I said was that the "intellectual behavior" of creationists debating their points tends to be quite an immature debacle to behold. This is just the truth as I see it. A person could be the most intelligent person in the world, but if they are still a creationist, and start in on the ridiculous, unfounded ideas of creationism that are constantly paraded around by that bunch... well... then, no matter how smart they are, they have just engaged in intellectual tomfoolery.

It would be a shock to the world if someone were actually able to INTELLECTUALLY HONESTLY provide inter-subjectifiably sound evidence for creationism. Like the kinds of evidence we have for evolution. Actual, demonstrable evidence. As it stands, there has never been any such thing presented. Not once.