People who believe in god are broken

[rigney]

Science isn't really a religion, in fact science in religion are separate, that's why it's a mistake to think they interfere with each other. CERN has been making progress, they recently confirmed the existence of another particle and are close to confirming a Higg's boson.

 

I have absolute admiration for much of science, especially the medical field. Without it we would probably still be wearing garlic around our neck to ward off vampires. But some people have such a deep belief in all facets of science that they are fanatical about it almost like the Mullah is about his religion. And even if we do find this boson to be everything Dr. Higgs predicted, where do we go from there? What if the theory of strings is even proven to be true? What then? Do we simply believe that stepping through the looking glass into another dimension will be possible? Believe me, I'm not being critical, just curious and cautious. But my biggest fear is, can we save this planet from crackpots like the anthrax Mullah and other nuts? I really don't care much for the prospects of living forever myself, but I would like to think many more generations will be allowed to inhabit this planet long after we are dust. Edited April 30, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

No evidence can ever be produced to those that believe that a god doesn't exist, so surely you jest.

This is not true at all, and frankly is a bit insulting. I would very much review and accept valid evidence, however, the theist camp can barely even offer a cogent definition of god, let alone evidence which adequately scales with the extraordinary nature of the claim.

 

The concept of evidence is quite clear in this context, and you (and other theists like you) have merely failed to even approach that threshold, let alone surpass it.

 

I am quite open minded on this. However, I'm not SO open minded that I will accept the fact that there is an ocean as evidence of Poseidon, or the fact that there is thunder as evidence of Thor. Nor would you, I suspect.

 

I would, however, accept actual evidence that matched an actual clear and agreed upon definition of god (as opposed to the nebulous, woo ridden, ethereal mumbo jumbo... shifts with the breeze to meet whatever a believer wants it to mean at that particular moment... definitions we generally hear).

 

---

 

Can the comments about the LHC and subatomic physics please be taken elsewhere?

 

---

 

I read this this morning. Reminded me of our discussion here:

 

 

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/a-review-of-a-book-about-evangelical-christians/

 

Does anyone doubt that the convictions of faith are often based not on scientific evidence but revelation, and that revelation is largely (but not totally) impervious to reason? This is why most of us aim our attacks on religion not on evangelicals, or the already committed, but those with doubts, those on the fence, or young people. The last sentence in the paragraph above, by the way, is a pithy statement of why science and faith are incompatible.

 

In the end, all of it—including the sophisticated lucubrations of theologians who spend their time justifying what they want to be true—comes down to revelation, which I’ll define in Feynman’s words as “the ultimate way of fooling yourself.” Or, even simpler: “It’s true because I want it to be true.”

 

---

 

In post #241, I inserted 3 links hoping someone would comment on them or why they were even there, but evidently no one saw anything to question.

Rigney - I'll be perfectly honest with you here... I had NO idea what your point was in post 241, and I sure wasn't about to watch an hour and a half long video trying to find out. I figured if it was important you would clarify how it was at all relevant to our discussion. However, now that you have clarified your intent a bit, I realize it wasn't relevant IMO. Just because you're incredulous and uninformed about what's happening at CERN and in similar research domains doesn't mean that work is magic or somehow equivalent to religion.

Edited April 30, 2012 by iNow

[zapatos]

Feel free to take your time, I have been waiting 40 years for someone to offer any real evidence.

Have a look here first

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

so at least we are talking about the same thing

From your link, types of evidence include:

 

Anecdotal evidence

Intuition

Personal experience

Scientific evidence

Testimonial

 

Examples of evidence of God for all but scientific:

 

Anecdotal - A person who prays for a cure and their disease goes into remission

Intuition - There must be something that created the universe based on my understanding of cause and effect, conservation of energy, etc.

Personal Experience - I had a near death experience.

Testimonial - Declarations from the Pope when speaking ex cathedra.

 

In a similar way, example of evidence of extraterrestrials include:

 

Anecdotal - Crop circles

Intuition - The Drake equation. As big as the universe is and with the number of planets in the goldilocks zone, there must be other life out there.

Personal Experience - I saw a blue and green light hover over me, then fly off into the distance.

Testimonial - The Disclosure Project

 

These are all evidence of God and aliens. You may find that they are not sufficient to justify the claim of the existence, or you may feel they in no way support the proposition, but they are evidence nonetheless. Evidence is often wrong, misleading, insufficient, questionable, etc. That does not stop it from being evidence.

[rigney]

This is not true at all, and frankly is a bit insulting. I would very much review and accept valid evidence, however, the theist camp can barely even offer a cogent definition of god, let alone evidence which adequately scales with the extraordinary nature of the claim.

 

The concept of evidence is quite clear in this context, and you (and other theists like you) have merely failed to even approach that threshold, let alone surpass it.

 

I am quite open minded on this. However, I'm not SO open minded that I will accept the fact that there is an ocean as evidence of Poseidon, or the fact that there is thunder as evidence of Thor. Nor would you, I suspect.

 

I would, however, accept actual evidence that matched an actual clear and agreed upon definition of god (as opposed to the nebulous, woo ridden, ethereal mumbo jumbo... shifts with the breeze to meet whatever a believer wants it to mean at that particular moment... definitions we generally hear).

 

---

 

Can the comments about the LHC and subatomic physics please be taken elsewhere?

 

---

 

I read this this morning. Reminded me of our discussion here:

 

 

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/a-review-of-a-book-about-evangelical-christians/

 

 

 

---

 

 

Rigney - I'll be perfectly honest with you here... I had NO idea what your point was in post 241, and I sure wasn't about to watch an hour and a half long video trying to find out. I figured if it was important you would clarify how it was at all relevant to our discussion. However, now that you have clarified your intent a bit, I realize it wasn't relevant IMO. Just because you're incredulous and uninformed about what's happening at CERN and in similar research domains doesn't mean that work is magic or somehow equivalent to religion.

 

I love your use of the vernacular. Describing me as incredulous and uninformed is rather imaginative, but you left out a couple, pompus and egotistical. And as far as CERN, you can only wish. Edited April 30, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

These are all evidence of God and aliens. You may find that they are not sufficient to justify the claim of the existence, or you may feel they in no way support the proposition, but they are evidence nonetheless. Evidence is often wrong, misleading, insufficient, questionable, etc. That does not stop it from being evidence.

Fine. Should we start adding "not nonsensical" or "even remotely useful" as adjectives in front of the word "evidence" every time we use it?

 

As in, "Do you have any not nonsensical evidence for the existence god(s)?" or, "Do you have any even remotely useful evidence for the existence god(s)?"

 

Does this apply only in the religion forum, or do we need to also do this in the physics, chemistry, and biology forums, too? As in, "Do you have any not nonsensical evidence that perpetual motion machines exist?" or, "Do you have any even remotely useful evidence that gravity makes objects repel from one another?"

 

Why the special approach for religious claims? Why are we asked to accept faith alone as sufficient for beliefs in god(s), yet nowhere else on any other topic would this be adequate?

 

Why is the standard of evidence somehow less when it comes to your personal beliefs? Why the double standard?

[zapatos]

Fine. Should we start adding "not nonsensical" or "even remotely useful" as adjectives in front of the word "evidence" every time we use it?

 

As in, "Do you have any not nonsensical evidence for the existence god(s)?" or, "Do you have any even remotely useful evidence for the existence god(s)?"

 

Does this apply only in the religion forum, or do we need to also do this in the physics, chemistry, and biology forums, too? As in, "Do you have any not nonsensical evidence that perpetual motion machines exist?" or, "Do you have any even remotely useful evidence that gravity makes objects repel from one another?"

 

Why the special approach for religious claims? Why are we asked to accept faith alone as sufficient for beliefs in god(s), yet nowhere else on any other topic would this be adequate?

 

Why is the standard of evidence somehow less when it comes to your personal beliefs? Why the double standard?

You believe the evidence is nonsensical. Someone else believes it to be good evidence. Why do you think that the right to decide which it is, belongs to you?

 

One scientist believes he has evidence supporting his position. Another scientist believes the evidence he is presenting is nonsensical and not even remotely useful. Does that mean the first scientist doesn't really have evidence at all? Or that it is really nonsensical and not remotely useful, just because the second scientist said so? Should the first scientist stop believing he is on to something and stop doing research?

 

You are not being asked to accept faith alone as sufficient for belief in Gods. You are being asked to accept that reasonable people coming to a conclusion other than the one you hold are not necessarily broken.

[John Cuthber]

No evidence can ever be produced to those that believe that a god doesn't exist, so surely you jest.

 

Edited for spelling

I'm not joking, I'm happy to give people a chance to try.

It's the other side of the debate whose proponents have to be closed minded.

So here are the latest tries

1Anecdotal evidence

2Intuition

3Personal experience

4Scientific evidence

5Testimonial

 

We all know of anecdotes and testimonials that turn out to not be true. Someone was mistaken or dishonest.

That takes the edge off 1 5.

The third type (personal experience) is evidence, but not from anyone else's point of view. Just because I know that I had chicken for dinner doesn't mean that I can convince you. So, it's not much use here

Intuition isn't actually evidence at all. At best its the same as personal experience- but without the clarity of reasoning.

So at best those 4 are all weak evidence; certainly not enough to support the existence of leprechauns.

 

Would any of these convince you that leprechauns are real?

1 I have heard about leprechauns.

2 I have a hunch that leprechauns exist

3 I have met leprechauns

or

5 I have a sworn statement from someone that they have met leprechauns

 

They all look a bit thin really.

 

So we are down to scientific evidence

and, as Zapatos has pointed out, there isn't any scientific evidence for leprechauns.

 

I therefore conclude that leprechauns don't exist. I can't be 100% certain of this conclusion but, let's face it, I'm not going to put a lot of effort into chasing the ends of rainbows looking for gold.

[zapatos]

I'm not joking, I'm happy to give people a chance to try.

It's the other side of the debate whose proponents have to be closed minded.

So here are the latest tries

1Anecdotal evidence

2Intuition

3Personal experience

4Scientific evidence

5Testimonial

 

We all know of anecdotes and testimonials that turn out to not be true. Someone was mistaken or dishonest.

That takes the edge off 1 5.

The third type (personal experience) is evidence, but not from anyone else's point of view. Just because I know that I had chicken for dinner doesn't mean that I can convince you. So, it's not much use here

Intuition isn't actually evidence at all. At best its the same as personal experience- but without the clarity of reasoning.

So at best those 4 are all weak evidence; certainly not enough to support the existence of leprechauns.

 

Would any of these convince you that leprechauns are real?

1 I have heard about leprechauns.

2 I have a hunch that leprechauns exist

3 I have met leprechauns

or

5 I have a sworn statement from someone that they have met leprechauns

 

They all look a bit thin really.

 

So we are down to scientific evidence

and, as Zapatos has pointed out, there isn't any scientific evidence for leprechauns.

 

I therefore conclude that leprechauns don't exist. I can't be 100% certain of this conclusion but, let's face it, I'm not going to put a lot of effort into chasing the ends of rainbows looking for gold.

Ok, good. I am glad to see we can agree that there is evidence of God for some people, no matter how weak and pathetic you may find it to be.

 

My second point was that different people will view evidence different ways. For example, the prosecutor presents evidence of a crime and we have a hung jury. (Can't decide) A second jury decides he is guilty (believes the evidence). A retrial then finds the person not guilty (didn't believe the evidence). I don't find any of the jurors to be necessarily broken (although they may be). They were not there, they do not know for sure, but based on the evidence they see, their background/personality/education/experiences, they make a call. They know they can be wrong, but they are doing the best they can.

 

In a similar way people are looking at what is by definition unscientific evidence of God, and based on their background/personality/education/experiences, they make a call. Most know they can be wrong but this is the best they can come up with.

 

I don't see either group to be necessarily broken, because they are basing the call on what they know.

 

Scientists are more likely to be atheist I believe, because on average they have a better education, better training in logic, better understanding of things that might seem supernatural to the uninformed. There are probably many scientists who became atheists at around the time of their education.

 

I imagine many people who are theists would become atheists if given the same rigorous training and education you find with scientists.

 

Those theists aren't broken now and fixed after the education. They are less educated now and more educated after the education.

Edited April 30, 2012 by zapatos

[John Cuthber]

A couple of things, I will start with the easy bit

Even if you say that there is some evidence for God (at least for some people)

you still have to explain why people will put up with evidence for religion and base life-changing decisions on it when the evidence is so poor they wouldn't accept it as evidence for even the most trivial action in another context.

You probably wouldn't convict someone of speeding just because another member of the public said "they were driving too fast".

I also rather doubt that you are entirely convinced about which brand of soap powder washed whiter just because an advert told you so.

 

Why the "special case" for religion that lets it get away with piss poor evidence?

 

Also, to be honest I think the use of the word "broken" might be unhelpful here.

Here's a rough draft of my take on the issues.

Imagine a plough going across a cricket pitch. It's going to do a lot of damage, but it isn't broken. It's just not in the right place.

Also, I can't run 100m in anything like 10 seconds. It's not that my legs are "broken" they just lack the training (as do my heart lungs etc).

 

It's hypothesised that there's a part of the brain whose job is to look for "things that are happening because something or someone is making them happen" It's called agent detecting.

It's very useful- it lets us hear a snapped twig and realise it's time to run away.

On the other hand, it's not much use on its own. You would never stop "running away".

There is another bit of the brain; its' job is to weigh up evidence and make use of past experience.

 

Now imagine that you see "the world".

it's complicated and it "does things" so the agent detection bit of the brain lights up and says "Something or someone has caused this".

There are two ways the evidence processing bit of the brain can go.

One way is to say "well, no human could have done all this- so it must be a 'superhuman' entity that's responsible"

Another way would be to say "Actually, nothing in any small part of the universe is all that odd. It could be just stuff happening- in the way that the wind blows or drying mud forms polygonal patterns. OK the scale is huge but that''s all.

 

Now my contention is that those with a background of thinking about complicated real systems are less likely to take the first route.

 

I'm not going to make any friends by saying this but, I think the problem isn't that they are "broken": it's that they are "childish".

 

Before you all jump on my head for saying that first think about how all the things that atheists liken God to ( Santa Claus, leprechauns, the tooth fairy...) are all things that we probably believed in as children.

Next have a look at this thread

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66029-analytic-thinking-decreases-religious-beliefs/page__pid__674820#entry674820

 

If you are still unhappy, then I suggest you pretend I used the word "imaginative" instead of "childish".

 

The "agent detection system" and the "evidence/ past experience weighing system" are not broken, just misused, and untrained, respectively.

Edited April 30, 2012 by John Cuthber

[doG]

No evidence can ever be produced to those that believe that a god doesn't exist, so surely you jest.

No evidence exists to prove the nonexistence of anything, deities, leprechauns, unicorns, etc.. It is a flawed to believe though that any of these exist simply because no one can prove they don't. In reality there is no evidence to suggest any of these things exist and no rational reason to believe they do just because no one can prove they don't.

 

Ok, good. I am glad to see we can agree that there is evidence of God for some people, no matter how weak and pathetic you may find it to be.

What evidence? I've never seen any evidence at all for the existence of any deities.

[iNow]

Also, to be honest I think the use of the word "broken" might be unhelpful here.

<...>

I'm not going to make any friends by saying this but, I think the problem isn't that they are "broken": it's that they are "childish".

 

Before you all jump on my head for saying that first think about how all the things that atheists liken God to ( Santa Claus, leprechauns, the tooth fairy...) are all things that we probably believed in as children.

Next have a look at this thread

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66029-analytic-thinking-decreases-religious-beliefs/page__pid__674820#entry674820

 

If you are still unhappy, then I suggest you pretend I used the word "imaginative" instead of "childish".

I'm fine with that.

[Phi for All]

Also, to be honest I think the use of the word "broken" might be unhelpful here.

Especially since several requests to define the word didn't obtain any satisfactory results. The best we've gotten is that it's shorthand for mentally defective, which is somewhat predestined to garner negativity. It also makes the title statement of the thread an ad hominem attack.

 

I'm not going to make any friends by saying this but, I think the problem isn't that they are "broken": it's that they are "childish".

Would you say that children are mentally defective?

[zapatos]

What evidence? I've never seen any evidence at all for the existence of any deities.

Can you be more specific? I've just spent several posts explaining my positioin on 'evidence'. Can you tell me which parts you have a problem with?

[doG]

Can you be more specific? I've just spent several posts explaining my positioin on 'evidence'. Can you tell me which parts you have a problem with?

In response to John Cuthber's post 257, you replied,"

Ok, good. I am glad to see we can agree that there is evidence of God for some people, no matter how weak and pathetic you may find it to be....

but John presented no evidence for any god in that post so your remark that you can agree that there is some evidence for god for some people is confusing.

[zapatos]

In response to John Cuthber's post 257, you replied,"

but John presented no evidence for any god in that post so your remark that you can agree that there is some evidence for god for some people is confusing.

Oh, ok. In post #253 I mentioned examples of anecdotal and personal experiences that to some people would be viewed as evidence of the existence of God. While John did not seem to think much of the examples, he did say in post #257 that "The third type (personal experience) is evidence, but not from anyone else's point of view."

 

That prompted my comment that we agreed at least on that small point.

[doG]

"The third type (personal experience) is evidence, but not from anyone else's point of view."

 

That prompted my comment that we agreed at least on that small point.

I would not really consider that valid evidence but something misunderstood for evidence.

[zapatos]

A couple of things, I will start with the easy bit

Even if you say that there is some evidence for God (at least for some people)

you still have to explain why people will put up with evidence for religion and base life-changing decisions on it when the evidence is so poor they wouldn't accept it as evidence for even the most trivial action in another context.

You probably wouldn't convict someone of speeding just because another member of the public said "they were driving too fast".

I also rather doubt that you are entirely convinced about which brand of soap powder washed whiter just because an advert told you so.

That's a good question, and since that level of evidence doesn't do it for me it is hard to say. The only thing that comes readily to mind is confirmation bias. If I already believe, I would probably give extra weight to those things that seemed to fit my view.

 

Why the "special case" for religion that lets it get away with piss poor evidence?

Another great question. Indoctrination maybe? If I'm told all my life that no evidence is necessary, will I jump at even the smallest bit of evidence, not matter how tenuous?

 

Also, to be honest I think the use of the word "broken" might be unhelpful here.

Here's a rough draft of my take on the issues.

Imagine a plough going across a cricket pitch. It's going to do a lot of damage, but it isn't broken. It's just not in the right place.

Also, I can't run 100m in anything like 10 seconds. It's not that my legs are "broken" they just lack the training (as do my heart lungs etc).

 

It's hypothesised that there's a part of the brain whose job is to look for "things that are happening because something or someone is making them happen" It's called agent detecting.

It's very useful- it lets us hear a snapped twig and realise it's time to run away.

On the other hand, it's not much use on its own. You would never stop "running away".

There is another bit of the brain; its' job is to weigh up evidence and make use of past experience.

 

Now imagine that you see "the world".

it's complicated and it "does things" so the agent detection bit of the brain lights up and says "Something or someone has caused this".

There are two ways the evidence processing bit of the brain can go.

One way is to say "well, no human could have done all this- so it must be a 'superhuman' entity that's responsible"

Another way would be to say "Actually, nothing in any small part of the universe is all that odd. It could be just stuff happening- in the way that the wind blows or drying mud forms polygonal patterns. OK the scale is huge but that''s all.

 

Now my contention is that those with a background of thinking about complicated real systems are less likely to take the first route.

 

I'm not going to make any friends by saying this but, I think the problem isn't that they are "broken": it's that they are "childish".

 

Before you all jump on my head for saying that first think about how all the things that atheists liken God to ( Santa Claus, leprechauns, the tooth fairy...) are all things that we probably believed in as children.

Next have a look at this thread

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66029-analytic-thinking-decreases-religious-beliefs/page__pid__674820#entry674820

 

If you are still unhappy, then I suggest you pretend I used the word "imaginative" instead of "childish".

 

The "agent detection system" and the "evidence/ past experience weighing system" are not broken, just misused, and untrained, respectively.

I agree that the word 'broken' is a poor choice. I would imagine people who 'believe' fall on a continuum. There may actually be some who are broken, but I expect a large group would be those who don't have the training and experience to overcome the first 18 years of religious training. Also some who are very comfortable with their belief and see no need to question it. And just like some people were made to be salesmen or engineeers, some people were made to be religious.

 

Of course there are also those who have the training and background for logical and critical thought, who have thought deeply about God, and have concluded that belief is God is correct. I would never pass judgement on them. I might not agree with them, but if they put in the effort, then the belief they come up with is fine with me. I know I find it offensive when some religious person tells me I am going to hell.

 

I would not really consider that valid evidence but something misunderstood for evidence.

As I read what Wikipedia had to say it sounded to me like technically it was evidence. Whether it actually leads to a valid defense of God is another matter.

 

Evidence is whatever you use to support your position. After review it may be rejected as insufficient or even unrelated to the position it is purported to support.

 

A scientist can do experiments, collect data, and use it as evidence to support the idea that he was able to create cold fusion. Whether cold fusion is ultimately accepted or rejected, what he supplied was his evidence. Even if he is the only one who thought it constituted evidence in the first place.

 

A prosecutor will present evidence of someone's guilt. Even if the person is found not guilty, what the prosecutor has is still evidence. It could be weak, insufficient, or flat out wrong. But it did not stop being evidence.

 

When I say there is evidence of God, I am making no judgement on its veracity. I am not trying to get anyone to accept it as valid. I am just saying that testimonials, artifacts, personal experiences, etc. that people use to support the belief in God, is by definition, evidence.

[iNow]

several requests to define the word didn't obtain any satisfactory results.

That might be part of the reason this has turned out to be such an engaging and active discussion. ???

 

The best we've gotten is that it's shorthand for mentally defective, which is somewhat predestined to garner negativity. It also makes the title statement of the thread an ad hominem attack.

I did not title the thread, "People who believe in god are mentally defective."

 

Would you say that children are mentally defective?

No, but perhaps adults who still believe in the same things as they do are? Santa... tooth fairy... invisible friends... Surely, once an individual is through puberty it's expected that those beliefs are recognized as childish and done away with. In most people not god, though. It's fascinating, really.

[Phi for All]

I did not title the thread, "People who believe in god are mentally defective."

But it was you who said that "broken" is shorthand for "mentally defective".

[iNow]

But it was you who said that "broken" is shorthand for "mentally defective".

Let's be specific if we're going to quibble.

 

doG said: Those that think they can claim knowledge based simply on beliefs, particularly blind faith based beliefs have a mental defect in their ability to reason rationally.

 

I replied: Or, to use a rhetorical shorthand, they are "broken." Clearly, this was in context of their ability to reason rationally on this topic.

 

This was many pages ago, though, and as I shared above, that's not what I titled the thread.

 

Since you have been asking, and I think a lot of you, I will expand a little in the hopes that we can return to the topic after this. The concept of broken was intentionally left ambiguous so as to encourage discussion and free exchange of ideas. I think we've been rather successful with that, and while some opinions have been shared more strongly than others, I feel the exchange has been quite civil and mature overall. I might even suggest that this thread has served as a good example of what we strive for in threads here at SFN... Solid participation from several members who hold many different views, authenticity and sincerity in opinion, a safe place to share those opinions, but also a place where we see insightful challenges to weak positions and arguments... I've enjoyed it, and I trust countless others have as well. That is in large part because of the chosen descriptor, IMO.

 

Will we be allowed now to return to the discussion?

[tar]

The "agent detection system" and the "evidence/ past experience weighing system" are not broken, just misused, and untrained, respectively.

 

John Cuthber,

 

I really liked your #259. And I think some of the answers to the thread question, lie not so much in whether one that believes in god, has any proof of the actual existence of a real "separate enity", that can be backed up by evidence, because God is not that kind of thing, but lie in looking for what God represents in the workings of the quite evidentially provable human brain, consciousness, and "understanding".

 

From the Wiki article on Mathematical Proof.

 

Proofs may be viewed as aesthetic objects, admired for their mathematical beauty. The mathematician Paul Erdős was known for describing proofs he found particularly elegant as coming from "The Book", a hypothetical tome containing the most beautiful method(s) of proving each theorem. The book Proofs from THE BOOK, published in 2003, is devoted to presenting 32 proofs its editors find particularly pleasing.

 

 

Quite evident that mathematicians are also "broken", that they should believe such a book exists. Where's the "proof"?

 

And after all, everybody already has an "idea" of what this God thing is, that others are misunderstanding so badly.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Phi for All]

Let's be specific if we're going to quibble.

 

doG said: Those that think they can claim knowledge based simply on beliefs, particularly blind faith based beliefs have a mental defect in their ability to reason rationally.

 

I replied: Or, to use a rhetorical shorthand, they are "broken." Clearly, this was in context of their ability to reason rationally on this topic.

 

This was many pages ago, though, and as I shared above, that's not what I titled the thread.

 

Since you have been asking, and I think a lot of you, I will expand a little in the hopes that we can return to the topic after this. The concept of broken was intentionally left ambiguous so as to encourage discussion and free exchange of ideas. I think we've been rather successful with that, and while some opinions have been shared more strongly than others, I feel the exchange has been quite civil and mature overall. I might even suggest that this thread has served as a good example of what we strive for in threads here at SFN... Solid participation from several members who hold many different views, authenticity and sincerity in opinion, a safe place to share those opinions, but also a place where we see insightful challenges to weak positions and arguments... I've enjoyed it, and I trust countless others have as well. That is in large part because of the chosen descriptor, IMO.

 

Will we be allowed now to return to the discussion?

We never left the discussion.

[doG]

From the Wiki article on Mathematical Proof....

....Quite evident that mathematicians are also "broken", that they should believe such a book exists. Where's the "proof"?

Really? Equating a faith based belief to a hypothetical book that no one claims to actually exist. I notice the Wiki article for straw man has a section for examples. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia I think you should copy your post there since it's a great example.

 

doG said: Those that think they can claim knowledge based simply on beliefs, particularly blind faith based beliefs have a mental defect in their ability to reason rationally.

 

I replied: Or, to use a rhetorical shorthand, they are "broken." Clearly, this was in context of their ability to reason rationally on this topic.

And to clarify....

 

Irrationality

 

Irrationality is cognition, thinking, talking or acting without inclusion of rationality. It is more specifically described as an action or opinion given through inadequate using reason , emotional distress, or cognitive deficiency. The term is used, usually pejoratively, to describe thinking and actions that are, or appear to be, less useful or more illogical than other more rational alternatives...

[questionposter]

Isn't the bible's stories supposedly evidence for god because some of what's in there is suppose to be what god said/did?

[tar]

doG,

 

You missed the point I am driving at.

 

Check out the 99 names for Allah, and tell me only a broken person would believe in any of them.

 

http://muttaqun.com/99names.html

 

And don't misunderstand me. I witnessed the Twin Towers burning, and I am the great Satan in the eyes of many of the believers in Mohammed's Koran. They are my enemy, and I have every reason to tear the book apart, both literally and in valid arguments. Mohammed had no right to usurp the power of people's belief, and equate belief in Allah, with belief in Mohammed, and his commandments. Its down right idiocy, the whole 48 virgin or burn in hell thing, if you do or don't believe in Allah's messenger. Believers and Disbievers, as if we ALL don't believe in these 99 ideals. What I don't believe in is the things Mohammed made up, in Allah's name(s).

 

But the misuse of people's belief in these things is not my point.

 

What I am after, is an understanding of why these 99 things are so powerful, when embodied in Mohammed, as to have a quarter of the population of the planet, reciting his words 3 times a day, and living for the day they will take a pilgramage to Mecca, to circle the stone with other believers, and strive in many ways for the day, that all the world is for Allah.

 

This is proof of God. Beyond any reasonable doubt. But not to be found so much in the sky, but in the hearts and minds of men.

 

I know Inow is looking to understand this usurption that religion does. And I am with him, in the knowledge that the answer lies in how we are put together. Not by any "designer" that can be befriended or wronged, but by evolution, the survival of the organisms that were best arranged to do so. So the answers "have to be" explainable. All the evidence is in the folds of our brains, and the stars in the sky.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited May 1, 2012 by tar