in his name...wait what?

[Jetsetlemming]

*muses to herself*

Actually Jetsetlemming, my Grandfather believes in evolution (you know, the Christian Anglican Reverend I mentioned pages ago) has done so for as long as I remember....

Why is the only notable movement against Evolution based in the USA's Bible belt? What makes them that extra bit wacky? People would laugh if you suggested the alternatives being taught in a science class where I come from... Religion, at a stretch, but science, no way...

Any suggestions?

This is also the area of the country most of the reports of UFO abductions come from. Coincidence? I think not.
My 10th grade biology teacher was Christian and beleived in evolution. He simply believed that evolution was a tool of God's. A lot of kids complained about him referencing Christianity in class, though as far as I know nobody took the complaints to the administration.

The secular view of the universe and life is tiny, detail-less, and severly lacking.

Oh man, life must be very boring for you. Believe me when I say that my life is full of detail and wonder without the trappings of religion.

I have to ask though, you actually think that just because some people don't have a deity, that somehow this makes life less detailed or interesting for them? That the lack of faith means they lack a sense of wonder?

No no, about the local world, about the present, secular science knows a lot. We aren't just talking about the here and now, however.

BTW, it's been a couple years since I last attended church, are they still arguing the earth is 6000 years old, or have they quietely dropped that point by now?

If you've got some evidence that God doesn't exist, and that all religon is false, I'd love to see it.

You don't need any evidence to not believe something. In circumstances where there is a lack of evidence to support an assertion (say, the existence of elves), we do not usually say "Well, there could be elves, or there could not be elves. Both propositions are equally reasonable and we must give them equal credence." We certainly don't say, "Well, we haven't proved there aren't elves, so elves there must be!" Most people would be inclined to say, "I've never seen an elf. No reliable source has ever claimed to see an elf. So elves don't exist."

You're 100% correct of course, however, you DO need evidence if you make a statement such as

I have mountains of actual evidence on my side

[Linkara]

and you still fail to see the point that by taking the same label as them, without in your taking of it stating that you feel them to -not be Christian- (not feel that they're a separate sect, not that they have a different interpretation, but that they are completely, assed out wrong and have no right to do the things that they do, no right to the labels they claim) you link yourself to them.

Very well, I will then plainly and calmly say that they are assed out wrong and have no right to do the things that they do, and no right to the labels they claim. Happy? ^_~

In all honesty, people have a right to think whatever they do (even if it is evil and wrong... I believe in free will, despite its obvious flaws here) and then subsequently name themselves as they would under their beliefs. Sometimes the names are associated with good or bad people, like in the case of the KKK believing themselves to be Christian or terrorists in the Middle East believing themselves to be Islamic. It's what they do that matters.

I'm going to drop the drug and religion comparison, because I don't feel it's going anywhere and in all honesty, an analogy between the two may not be wholly correct, but there is a point to it that I get, I just don't really agree with.

[Toawa]

If you've got some evidence that God doesn't exist, and that all religon is false, I'd love to see it.

You don't need any evidence to not believe something. In circumstances where there is a lack of evidence to support an assertion (say, the existence of elves), we do not usually say "Well, there could be elves, or there could not be elves. Both propositions are equally reasonable and we must give them equal credence." We certainly don't say, "Well, we haven't proved there aren't elves, so elves there must be!" Most people would be inclined to say, "I've never seen an elf. No reliable source has ever claimed to see an elf. So elves don't exist."

A common misconception; logically speaking, you do need evidence to be able to say something is false. If there is no proof either way, the most correct answer is "I don't know," not "It's True" or "It's False." Pure logic does not have an "Innocent until proven Guilty" provision. (This concept is known as, among other things, null-convention logic. It's not as limiting as Boolean logic, which tends to give rise to the false dichotomies that are represented as the above assertion, "There's no proof for X, therefore X is false, despite there being no proof against X." In null convention logic, there are three states, true, false, and null ("I don't know"). The AND and OR operations are such that they only return a non-null state if they can be sure of the result: OR returns true if one input is true and false iff both are false, AND returns false if one input is false and true iff both are true. Otherwise they return null.)

That being said, one must remember that we are not Vulcans; we need not have solid logical chains of thought in order to act. Whether or not that's a good idea is open to debate, but it is not a requirement.

[Linkara]

Ooh! *Goes into Coffee Talk With Linda Richman mode*

Topic: a philosophy of pure logic does can only benefit the individual; there is no patriotism, feeling for others, or idea of a group ethic. DISCUSS!

[Toawa]

Be very glad I didn't break out value functions...

[Squidflakes]

Ooh! *Goes into Coffee Talk With Linda Richman mode*

Topic: a philosophy of pure logic does can only benefit the individual; there is no patriotism, feeling for others, or idea of a group ethic. DISCUSS!

It is logical to have a group ethic because a single human can no longer meet all of their nutritional and shelter needs while still maintaining our current level of technological and cultural advancement alone.

[Honor]

Ack... Squiddy beat me to it.

Patriotism is also logical, when the country being supported and defended is also beneficial for the group at large and possibly the world externally.

"Feeling for others" springs not (initially, at least) from some enlightened philosophy, but rather from a measurable, evolved desire to "pack up" with others, because of the enhanced survival and environmental exploitation potential of the group over the individual... And thus it remains logical under manifold situations.

Annnnnd... I'm outta time again. I'll try desperately to catch up tonight.

[Indigo Violent]

logically speaking, you do need evidence to be able to say something is false. If there is no proof either way, the most correct answer is "I don't know," not "It's True" or "It's False."

Reasonable enough. However, just because I say "I believe there is no God, because the evidence is unconvincing," this doesn't mean that I'm saying, "There is no God, case closed, end of story, nothing can persuade me otherwise." All reasonable people know that their conclusions are contingent. Most of us will not answer the question "Do elves exist?" with "I don't know"; most people will say "No, elves are imaginary." If you like, you can tack on the rider "as far as we know" or "the position that elves are imaginary is consistent with the evidence available to us."

[Toawa]

logically speaking, you do need evidence to be able to say something is false. If there is no proof either way, the most correct answer is "I don't know," not "It's True" or "It's False."

Reasonable enough. However, just because I say "I believe there is no God, because the evidence is unconvincing," this doesn't mean that I'm saying, "There is no God, case closed, end of story, nothing can persuade me otherwise." All reasonable people know that their conclusions are contingent. Most of us will not answer the question "Do elves exist?" with "I don't know"; most people will say "No, elves are imaginary." If you like, you can tack on the rider "as far as we know" or "the position that elves are imaginary is consistent with the evidence available to us."

And that's why I said that humans aren't Vulcans; we don't generally qualify out statements to be logically bulletproof. And it's why debates in this medium are so tricky, because a lot of context is lost.

[Kite-san]

Just to muddy the waters a little Kite-San, there are "rebels" from Myannmar that state their motives for guerilla warefare are patriotic and in support/against the Junta (depending on which faction they belong to) however the reality of the situation is that they are just trying to keep the illegal opium, heroin (and now anphetamine) trade routes and farms/processing plants open for (as you say) monetary reasons.

Guerilla factions from all sides of the Golden Triangle regularly use partriotic and/or revolutionary rehtoric to support their propagation and trade of these drugs across their countries boarders.

Anyways, I'm just shit-stirring, I pretty much do agree with what you said

fair enough. i admit i'm out of date on those, last i was looking at was the gang wars over cocaine production in South America a few years back when both sides were pretty solidly clear that the war was just that they didn't want the other group horning in on their profits.

[Warmachine]

A common misconception; logically speaking, you do need evidence to be able to say something is false. If there is no proof either way, the most correct answer is "I don't know," not "It's True" or "It's False." Pure logic does not have an "Innocent until proven Guilty" provision.

Inexplicably missing evidence does count as evidence. For example, Iraq had a major WMD programme but this has yet to be found. If Iraq had a major programme, the lack of evidence is inexplicable. The chance that the programme existed but the evidence has been missed all this time is so tiny as to be dismissed. This chance is not exactly zero but you can never achieve an absolute zero or one hundred percent with evidence. There is the infinitesmal chance that data has been elaborately misinterpreted all along.

Consider the statement that pens sometimes hover in mid air. A single failure of a pen to hover does not invalidate the statement as it may have been an occasion when it had no power to hover. It was simply bad luck. After hundreds of failed hover attempts, the chance of bad luck on every single attempt become ridiculously small. If pens can sometime hover, the consistent failures are inexplicable. The statement is false with a level of certainty so close to absolute certainty as to be treated the same for any practical purpose. The chance that pens can sometimes hover is in the realm of fantasy and it can be dismissed. Convicts are sentenced to death with a mere 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

You can only say "I don't know" if there isn't enough affirmative or inexplicably missing evidence either way. In the case of the biblical god, I regard his failure to attend book signings or chat shows or write follow up books as inexplicable. An author who repeatedly refuses to promote or follow up his definitive book? Not an author of his ego. It's not as if he can't create some special effects to get him noticed or has no fans to spread the word.

[Toawa]

A common misconception; logically speaking, you do need evidence to be able to say something is false. If there is no proof either way, the most correct answer is "I don't know," not "It's True" or "It's False." Pure logic does not have an "Innocent until proven Guilty" provision.

Inexplicably missing evidence does count as evidence. For example, Iraq had a major WMD programme but this has yet to be found. If Iraq had a major programme, the lack of evidence is inexplicable. The chance that the programme existed but the evidence has been missed all this time is so tiny as to be dismissed. This chance is not exactly zero but you can never achieve an absolute zero or one hundred percent with evidence. There is the infinitesmal chance that data has been elaborately misinterpreted all along.

1. What if the evidence has been purposefully hidden?
2. What if you're looking in the wrong place?
3. What if you're looking at the wrong things?

In the absence of contradictory evidence, you cannot rule out any possibilities. Whether or not you act upon those possibilities is, of course, another matter entirely.

Consider the statement that pens sometimes hover in mid air. A single failure of a pen to hover does not invalidate the statement as it may have been an occasion when it had no power to hover. It was simply bad luck. After hundreds of failed hover attempts, the chance of bad luck on every single attempt become ridiculously small. If pens can sometime hover, the consistent failures are inexplicable. The statement is false with a level of certainty so close to absolute certainty as to be treated the same for any practical purpose. The chance that pens can sometimes hover is in the realm of fantasy and it can be dismissed. Convicts are sentenced to death with a mere 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Look up the Law of Large Numbers. Just because something doesn't happen, even after many trials, does not mean that it is impossible, only that it is improbable. (This assumes that the problem is well understood in the first place.) However, this particular example is flawed, because we do have quite a lot of evidence that says that pens are not going to hover, i.e., gravity.

You can only say "I don't know" if there isn't enough affirmative or inexplicably missing evidence either way. In the case of the biblical god, I regard his failure to attend book signings or chat shows or write follow up books as inexplicable. An author who repeatedly refuses to promote or follow up his definitive book? Not an author of his ego. It's not as if he can't create some special effects to get him noticed or has no fans to spread the word.

If you're in a unlit cave, looking at a painted canvas, what color is the canvas? If you say it's black, can you be sure it's black? It might look black, but is that because it is black, or because there is no light with which to see its color?

How can you know what should be there, to know that it is missing? If you don't know what is missing, or how to know that its missing, how can you declare it to be missing?

I am not defending any particular religious declaration (as an agnostic, I think any such declaration is pointless, as the odds of correctly assessing the "truth" is virtually, though not exactly, nil.) but I am trying to say that just because you have not found the specific evidence that you seek, does not mean that it does not exist; it is possible you're looking the wrong place; so keep an open mind.

[Putaro]

Well, there's a big difference between science and philosophy/mathematics. Philosophy/mathematics is based on logic in an ideal world. You can create laws and prove things "true" or "false". Science is based on observation. When observation doesn't match theory the theory changes. A scientist can't (honestly) state things as 100% true or false. You go by probabilities.

Getting an honest scientist into an argument with a dishonest philosopher is where things go bad. The dishonest philosopher says "You can't prove that 100%, now can you?" The honest scientist says "No, but 99.99+% I'm sure." The dishonest philosopher says "Ah ha - you aren't sure and it's not true/false now is it"

1. What if the evidence has been purposefully hidden?
2. What if you're looking in the wrong place?
3. What if you're looking at the wrong things?

In the absence of contradictory evidence, you cannot rule out any possibilities. Whether or not you act upon those possibilities is, of course, another matter entirely.

See, now that's just dishonest. You can, for all practical purposes rule things out. You can take 1 2 and 3 into account. And you can keep an open mind. But there's a big difference between "I'm 99.9% certain there's no God(s)" and "I'm not sure there's no God(s)".

[JohnnyTwoEyes]

If you're in a unlit cave, looking at a painted canvas, what color is the canvas? If you say it's black, can you be sure it's black? It might look black, but is that because it is black, or because there is no light with which to see its color?

I would argue that, as there is no light to reflect back to the eye, the canvas has no color. Until light enters the equation, whether or not it reflects a particular wavelength is irrelevant.

[Warmachine]

Putaro has answered for me. If evidence is being sought, the rules of evidence based reasoning apply, not pure logic or philosophy. As I wrote before, as soon as the use of evidence is considered, there cannot be absolute, pure certainty. There is always the infinitesmal chance that data is corrupt or being misinterpretated. If absolute certainty is wanted, use pure logic or faith, not evidence.

Let's hope no one tries using pure logic to prove the existence of their god. It's boring debunking such arguments yet again.

[Fnyunj]

So. . . this guy creates this webcomic and fake suicide story thing, and it's mildly interesting, but look at the DEBATE that sprang from it.

Sure - getting people going on a religious flamewar is pretty easy. But, wow.


Art, man. Art.

[Jetsetlemming]

Putaro has answered for me. If evidence is being sought, the rules of evidence based reasoning apply, not pure logic or philosophy. As I wrote before, as soon as the use of evidence is considered, there cannot be absolute, pure certainty. There is always the infinitesmal chance that data is corrupt or being misinterpretated. If absolute certainty is wanted, use pure logic or faith, not evidence.

Let's hope no one tries using pure logic to prove the existence of their god. It's boring debunking such arguments yet again.

But he wasn't trying to prove it... just show that it's not impossible.

[Putaro]

But he wasn't trying to prove it... just show that it's not impossible.

Another dishonest philosopher. Very improbable is not impossible. In a world of greys, however, very improbable is about as close as you can get to impossible. The moon might turn to green cheese tomorrow. It's not impossible. But it is pretty improbable.

Maybe there's just a fundamental problem - religion tries to be the intersection of philosophy and the real world. God, as a philosophical construct, belief, whatever is subject to the rules of philosophy where you can have absolutes. Trying to have god in the real world, though, you start bumping into the limitations of the real world. You know, all the old chestnuts - can God make a rock so big He can't lift it and so forth. Omniscience and omnipotence are absolutes and they don't fly out in the real world.

The Catholics have a lot of bright people in the church and have been bumping into this for a while. I won't claim to be an expert on their philosophy (note: these are not "average" Catholics but the top philosophers in the church) but from what I read in the papers it seems to be this: God is supernatural and beyond explanation. The physical world is natural and does not need God to explain it beyond its creation. God is not involved in the natural world except for the occasional miracle.

Honest philosophers do not need to play "gotcha" games with "well, so it's not *impossible*, so therefore you're saying I'm right". I think the people on this forum are smarter than that so stop being lazy and dishonest in your debating and stop trying to play word games and focus on your real points.

[Jetsetlemming]

Huh? You lost me on your first part.
As to Omnisentience and Omnipresence, God had neither before the New Testament. He had to rest after the first six days of Creation, he had to send angels into Sodom to investigate the number of moral souls living in it, etc. The concepts of omnisentience and omnipresence came later.

[Kite-san]

depends on who you ask.

most interpretations of the Moses five tend to either be that god didn't -need- to rest but simply chose to, the angels were sent for Jonah's benefit because the real thing yahweh was doing was testing him, rather than the city, etcetera.

personally i like the Ashkenazic (almost certainly horribly misspelled) Kaballah interpretation on it, that the rest was as an example to the universe that you're supposed to rest every so often, and that the omniscience is knowing everything that could possibly happen, the whole Schroedinger waveform, and the angels were sent to make the damn thing collapse so could find out which possible happening actually was.

worth -believeing- in? i don't really think so. but makes a good story.

(edit: blody hell, would you believe Ashkenazic is in the Mozilla spellchecker? these things are getting amazingly comprehensive.)