Lol yeah..
I am a Christian, but I do enjoy some hardcore, aviator wars
I am a Christian, but I do enjoy some hardcore, aviator wars
Poll
Are you a Christian?
| I would like to be | 50% | 50% - 157 | 50% | 50% - 157 | ||
| I don't want anything to do with that! | 55% | 55% - 174 | 44% | 44% - 140 | ||
| Total: 314 | ||||||
I started off by saying it still amazes me how much atheists credit to randomness and still think they are using logic. Things like perfect eclipses are best explained through an intelligence and not randomness.Chuckles wrote:
You've completely lost me on what "perfect eclipses" have to do with anything.
JaMDuDe, hear this. Humans are pattern-perceivers. Sometimes, however, we perceive a pattern where in fact, there is none. See pareidolia, and its more general category, apophenia.
The problem with randomness, is that it's never quite as random as humans expect it to be. That's because we are hardwired to err on the side of finding patterns.
The problem with randomness, is that it's never quite as random as humans expect it to be. That's because we are hardwired to err on the side of finding patterns.
Last edited by spastic bullet (2006-07-22 16:38:11)
Very true. But that same hardware prevents many from believing in God.spastic bullet wrote:
JaMDuDe, hear this. Humans are pattern-perceivers. Sometimes, however, we perceive a pattern where in fact, there is none. See pareidolia, and its more general category, apophenia.
The problem with randomness, is that it's never quite as random as humans expect it to be. That's because we are hardwired to err on the side of finding patterns.
(I don't care if you do or not)
eh, I'd say faith is the attitude humans have toward their understanding of their surroundings.Daysniper wrote:
You've got it backwards. Faith was created by humans to try to explain their surroundings!Vub wrote:
Science was created by humans and intelligent creatures in order to attempt to explain every phenomenon they observe. It is the humans' attempt (and a very successful one in certain regards) at trying to understand how God created the world and the universe. Hence it is a human interpretation of God's mind which we can't possibly understand, so therefore sometimes science would seem to contradict the Bible.
But ultimately science and research is just our way of getting closer to God and his creations.
Faith is ultimately the belief in the likelihood of anything outside yourself. Aspects of yourself are the only thing you ever really have a chance of knowing. I have faith that our understanding of math and science is correct in leading me to believe that 2+2=4 in a base 10 number system. I have faith that Pluto is the 9th (sometimes 8th) planet in the Sol solar system. I have not and can not prove these facts as they are outside my control or means to control.
I guess I agree with you!
But about the 2+2 part, humans could have made 2+2 anything they wanted. The only way that it can be explained in a solid way is that x+x= two x's. So what ever we want two x's to be named is what it is.
But about the 2+2 part, humans could have made 2+2 anything they wanted. The only way that it can be explained in a solid way is that x+x= two x's. So what ever we want two x's to be named is what it is.
yup, mathematics is merely a widespread mythology to better explain what happens and point out patterns.Daysniper wrote:
I guess I agree with you!
But about the 2+2 part, humans could have made 2+2 anything they wanted. The only way that it can be explained in a solid way is that x+x= two x's. So what ever we want two x's to be named is what it is.
That might just be the most intelligent thing I have ever read. *Falls off chair*puckmercury wrote:
yup, mathematics is merely a widespread mythology to better explain what happens and point out patterns.Daysniper wrote:
I guess I agree with you!
But about the 2+2 part, humans could have made 2+2 anything they wanted. The only way that it can be explained in a solid way is that x+x= two x's. So what ever we want two x's to be named is what it is.
I don't understand what you mean. How does the well known and demonstrated human tendency to perceive patterns where none in fact exist "prevent many from believing in God"? Surely the opposite makes more sense?topthrill05 wrote:
Very true. But that same hardware prevents many from believing in God.spastic bullet wrote:
JaMDuDe, hear this. Humans are pattern-perceivers. Sometimes, however, we perceive a pattern where in fact, there is none. See pareidolia, and its more general category, apophenia.
The problem with randomness, is that it's never quite as random as humans expect it to be. That's because we are hardwired to err on the side of finding patterns.
(I don't care if you do or not)
More the hardware,"Seeing is believing". And in a very odd way it comes back to patterns. If you still don't get it I can elaborate.
Well, that's pretty vague. If I said I understood that, it would be a good example of interpolating my own meaning, rather than correctly perceiving yours.
the force
To be honest I have a hard time putting what I mean into words sometimes. This happens to be one of them.spastic bullet wrote:
Well, that's pretty vague. If I said I understood that, it would be a good example of interpolating my own meaning, rather than correctly perceiving yours.
We as humans see things like other animals in the world. Un-till we become more educated. Basically a human sees everything in patterns. We really aren't programed to believe in anything other than what we see. This is why faith is so hard for many people, because the more educated we become the less willing some are to believe.
That is my point. Still I am making myself sound like those that don't believe are inferior which I am not.
EDIT: Stupid spelling error.
Last edited by topthrill05 (2006-07-22 17:30:16)
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
A suggestion to all:
The scientists - wherever you see the word 'God' substitute it for the word 'universe'.
The religious - wherever you see a scientific term such as 'universe' or 'atom' substitute it for the phrase 'aspect of God'.
Hope this helps...
No it isn't. It's just that simple.DoctorFruitloop wrote:
That's somewhat oversimplified and probably an insult to both camps.
And, no it doesn't. It fully respects the individual beliefs of both sides of the argument and provides a common ground from which both can work.Marconius wrote:
No, Scorpion, that actually does a great disservice to both camps.
The only problem comes from the fact that it attacks core irrational beliefs on both sides - the religious belief in a 'god' or 'gods' that are somehow neither seperate nor part, but somehow all encompasing - and the scientific dogma that no thing that can be labeled 'god' exists.
The problem isn't one of who is right - religion or science - but rather that each sides uses it's own terms and metaphors to describe the same essential things and the same essential questions - what is 'life', why are we here and so on...
Would it really be any surprise to find that both sides have reached the same conclusion but are looking at it from different angles and so describing it in different manners?
I think it's more correct to say simply that we as humans percieve patterns in the world around us - what we interpret those patterns to mean, and they way that we describe those patterns, is dependant on which patterns we have seen and to what fidelity. As we become more 'educated' it not so much a case that we become less willing to 'believe', but more that what information we're taking in changes what belief system we adopt - science is as much about belief as is religion.topthrill05 wrote:
To be honest I have a hard time putting what I mean into words sometimes. This happens to be one of them.spastic bullet wrote:
Well, that's pretty vague. If I said I understood that, it would be a good example of interpolating my own meaning, rather than correctly perceiving yours.
We as humans see things like other animals in the world. Un-till we become more educated. Basically a human sees everything in patterns. We really aren't programed to believe in anything other than what we see. This is why faith is so hard for many people, because the more educated we become the less willing some are to believe.
That is my point. Still I am making myself sound like those that don't believe are inferior which I am not.
EDIT: Stupid spelling error.
I think the most important thing is to try not to stand in judgement of others' beliefs, or lack thereof. So +1 for that.topthrill05 wrote:
To be honest I have a hard time putting what I mean into words sometimes. This happens to be one of them.spastic bullet wrote:
Well, that's pretty vague. If I said I understood that, it would be a good example of interpolating my own meaning, rather than correctly perceiving yours.
We as humans see things like other animals in the world. Un-till we become more educated. Basically a human sees everything in patterns. We really aren't programed to believe in anything other than what we see. This is why faith is so hard for many people, because the more educated we become the less willing some are to believe.
That is my point. Still I am making myself sound like those that don't believe are inferior which I am not.
That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with finding out more about how the universe works. All throughout human history, we've had to revise our understanding because of new scientific discoveries, and we've tended to benefit from more knowledge. That will continue. I don't think faith necessarily stands in the way of that, but I can see how it would at least be possible.
I dont see what your trying to say or prove.spastic bullet wrote:
JaMDuDe, hear this. Humans are pattern-perceivers. Sometimes, however, we perceive a pattern where in fact, there is none. See pareidolia, and its more general category, apophenia.
The problem with randomness, is that it's never quite as random as humans expect it to be. That's because we are hardwired to err on the side of finding patterns.
Okay here is your post, the one I was responding to...JaMDuDe wrote:
I dont see what your trying to say or prove.
And here is my response again...JaMDuDe wrote:
I started off by saying it still amazes me how much atheists credit to randomness and still think they are using logic. Things like perfect eclipses are best explained through an intelligence and not randomness.
My point is that, statistically speaking, the biggest coincidence possible would be the absence of all coincidence. Your attribution of "perfect eclipses" to "an intelligence" is an example of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. You conveniently ignore any number of less "perfect" coincidences in order to draw your already-drawn conclusion.spastic bullet wrote:
JaMDuDe, hear this. Humans are pattern-perceivers. Sometimes, however, we perceive a pattern where in fact, there is none. See pareidolia, and its more general category, apophenia.
The problem with randomness, is that it's never quite as random as humans expect it to be. That's because we are hardwired to err on the side of finding patterns.
The broader point is that humans' cognitive perception of randomness is subject to any number of biases, all of which -- while evolutionarily helpful in the long run -- dramatically reduce the effectiveness of our intuitive thinking in many specific instances. Some of our hardwired blind spots are well known, others less so. Some, no doubt, are yet to be discovered.
Don't get me wrong, I respect your faith in a higher power, but if you think the weight of scientific probability favours the existence of such, then you need new science teachers.
Kobrakai wrote:
Proud To Be An Atheist.
Im not ignoring all the less than perfect things and pointing out everything thats perfect. I was just talking about eclipses and how its very unlikely that "the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them" without any guidance. As ive said before, if you want great scientific evidence that points to a creator you should really read this book.spastic bullet wrote:
My point is that, statistically speaking, the biggest coincidence possible would be the absence of all coincidence. Your attribution of "perfect eclipses" to "an intelligence" is an example of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. You conveniently ignore any number of less "perfect" coincidences in order to draw your already-drawn conclusion.
The broader point is that humans' cognitive perception of randomness is subject to any number of biases, all of which -- while evolutionarily helpful in the long run -- dramatically reduce the effectiveness of our intuitive thinking in many specific instances. Some of our hardwired blind spots are well known, others less so. Some, no doubt, are yet to be discovered.
Don't get me wrong, I respect your faith in a higher power, but if you think the weight of scientific probability favours the existence of such, then you need new science teachers.
Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-07-22 20:39:30)
Goddamn it.
You simply refuse to acknowledge our constant pointing-out of the scientific problems with that book. It simply does not work.
You simply refuse to acknowledge our constant pointing-out of the scientific problems with that book. It simply does not work.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I'm sorry but I don't consider any of that stuff "great evidence that points to a creator". It's great evidence that the earth is very special in many regards, but that only goes to show how far apologetics have come from the days of the "vale of tears".JaMDuDe wrote:
Im not ignoring all the less than perfect things and pointing out everything thats perfect. I was just talking about eclipses and how its very unlikely that "the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them" without any guidance. As ive said before, if you want great scientific evidence that points to a creator you should really read this book.spastic bullet wrote:
My point is that, statistically speaking, the biggest coincidence possible would be the absence of all coincidence. Your attribution of "perfect eclipses" to "an intelligence" is an example of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. You conveniently ignore any number of less "perfect" coincidences in order to draw your already-drawn conclusion.
The broader point is that humans' cognitive perception of randomness is subject to any number of biases, all of which -- while evolutionarily helpful in the long run -- dramatically reduce the effectiveness of our intuitive thinking in many specific instances. Some of our hardwired blind spots are well known, others less so. Some, no doubt, are yet to be discovered.
Don't get me wrong, I respect your faith in a higher power, but if you think the weight of scientific probability favours the existence of such, then you need new science teachers.
You guys havent shown any good scientific problems with the book, i dont think you have even shown me a talkorigins review. Maybe i am ignoring "the constant pointing-out of the scientific problems" because im not seeing you post any.Spark wrote:
Goddamn it.
You simply refuse to acknowledge our constant pointing-out of the scientific problems with that book. It simply does not work.
Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-07-23 05:53:05)
JaMDuDe and Spark are now having a continuation of Noah's Ark thread. JaMDuDe keeps posting Intelligent Design and other Religiously based books as evidence, and Spark tries in vain to stop him. YAY!
The book i posted is based on science.