Christian version of Darwin's Origin of Species

he still stands

soulsinging wrote:

you assume i made a leap from science to atheism. i didn't. i'm a lawyer by training, not a physicist. and in my field, if you want me to believe something, you have to prove it's the case. i disbelieve god becos nobody has ever given me any reason, proof or evidence to believe god exists and there is lots of evidence that he does not exist in the form contemplated by most modern religions, not becos i think science has disproved god. i only defend science here becos it is a far more reasonable basis for daily life decisions than religion, based on its openness to new information. i don't believe in santa clause either, not becos the physics of one guy visiting everyone's houses negates the idea, but becos there is no proof he exists and a mountain of evidence indicating he doesn't. my atheism is not some logical leap of faith from science to atheism, nor do i think that's the case for most atheists i know. it exists separate from science, simply by virtue of the fact that pro-god people have no proof, and the circumstantial evidence and what we know about the world, while imperfect, falls more on the no-god side of things than the pro-god side of things.

You misunderstood, I don't want you to believe in anything.

And I apologize, I didn't know you had proof that god does not exist... You must have proof if you believe there is no god because you're a "lawyer by training, not a physicist. and in my field, if you want me to believe something, you have to prove it's the case"

so what is the proof? Otherwise, without clear and convincing evidence I'd assume the answer to the ultimate question is, "I don't know." Unless a preponderance of evidence will work for you to "believe" in something. For me that isn't good enough.

soulsinging

he still stands wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

you assume i made a leap from science to atheism. i didn't. i'm a lawyer by training, not a physicist. and in my field, if you want me to believe something, you have to prove it's the case. i disbelieve god becos nobody has ever given me any reason, proof or evidence to believe god exists and there is lots of evidence that he does not exist in the form contemplated by most modern religions, not becos i think science has disproved god. i only defend science here becos it is a far more reasonable basis for daily life decisions than religion, based on its openness to new information. i don't believe in santa clause either, not becos the physics of one guy visiting everyone's houses negates the idea, but becos there is no proof he exists and a mountain of evidence indicating he doesn't. my atheism is not some logical leap of faith from science to atheism, nor do i think that's the case for most atheists i know. it exists separate from science, simply by virtue of the fact that pro-god people have no proof, and the circumstantial evidence and what we know about the world, while imperfect, falls more on the no-god side of things than the pro-god side of things.

You misunderstood, I don't want you to believe in anything.

And I apologize, I didn't know you had proof that god does not exist... You must have proof if you believe there is no god because you're a "lawyer by training, not a physicist. and in my field, if you want me to believe something, you have to prove it's the case"

so what is the proof? Otherwise, without clear and convincing evidence I'd assume the answer to the ultimate question is, "I don't know." Unless a preponderance of evidence will work for you to "believe" in something. For me that isn't good enough.

preponderance of evidence IS good enough for me. and if new evidence comes to light, i'll reevaluate my decision on appeal

i don't have any proof that the guy in the next office is not a murderer, but i deem him not a murderer becos nobody has ever indicated he is, most people are not murderers, most murderers get caught, and he is still working in the office next to me.

the burden of persuasion is on the person seeking to establish the fact. i don't give a flying fuck what you believe about god and have no interest in trying to convince you. hell, i don't even know what "kind" of god you're asking me to disprove. it's a term with so many meanings i can't even begin to guess which you're discussing, let alone try to disprove it.

but i will argue against christianity, or islam, or judaism becos they have very clear concepts of what god is and the real world tends to disprove them. nobody has ever seen god. no human being has ever done what they claim jesus did. many other stories of the same age feature similar tales of miraculous feats, the paradox of an all-powerful and all-loving god that created suffering, etc. i can offer proof that the weight of the evidence strongly supports no god more than the christian god/jesus. so for now, that is the presumption i will live by. and they ARE trying to convince me what to believe.

what are you trying to convince me of? that i can never know anything? i'm sorry, but i don't live by waffling on all important real problems to avoid taking a stand. you're urging me to... what? keep an open mind? i already have that. it is not mutually exclusive with knowledge you know. the problem you have is that my mind is not open in the exact same way yours is... so open that there's nothing in there becos to have something in there might come dangerously close to actually having to focus on real issues instead of abstract existential philosophy.

he still stands

soulsinging wrote:

he still stands wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

the effect of someone watching or not watching as a tree falls is so minimal as to be utterly irrelevant in any real sense.

true... but it doesn't just apply to a lone random tree in a forest. Obviously... :?

if you say so. let me ask... have you ever tried to walk through walls or kill animals with your thoughts, like these guys?

http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/m ... areatgoats

I understand that it is hard to wrap your head around this... especially since it is generally accepted in the scientific community. I may seem like "new ager" but this is not metaphysics or pseudo-science. And yes, I really can't wait to see that movie.

"remember the promise as a kid you made" - yim yames

he still stands

so as a lawyer, tell me, can you sentence someone to death with a preponderance of evidence?

he still stands

soulsinging wrote:

the problem you have is that my mind is not open in the exact same way yours is... so open that there's nothing in there becos to have something in there might come dangerously close to actually having to focus on real issues instead of abstract existential philosophy.

Remember, George Costanza, "I'm okay and you're okay too"

Random_Wookie

But if no one observes the tree falling, how do we know that tree did not start in that position. The same can be said the with Schrödinger's cat as to the tree, we can not tell the state of either until it they are observed (we would need to have been in the forest at some point to see if the chosen tree was actually standing).

I believe (yes I said believe) that there is enough evidence out there to prove man's current set of religions wrong, thus invalidating them and the should be stopped for benifit of mankind. I am not saying there is a god or there is not a god, but so far I am going side with the later. I can not remember who said it on this thread but they said they literally believe in the bible, how can you do that when it is meant to be the word of god. This statement in itself would indicate a lack of faith in the religion that you are associating with.

catefrances

soulsinging wrote:

preponderance of evidence IS good enough for me. and if new evidence comes to light, i'll reevaluate my decision on appeal

i don't have any proof that the guy in the next office is not a murderer, but i deem him not a murderer becos nobody has ever indicated he is, most people are not murderers, most murderers get caught, and he is still working in the office next to me.

the burden of persuasion is on the person seeking to establish the fact. i don't give a flying fuck what you believe about god and have no interest in trying to convince you. hell, i don't even know what "kind" of god you're asking me to disprove. it's a term with so many meanings i can't even begin to guess which you're discussing, let alone try to disprove it.

but i will argue against christianity, or islam, or judaism becos they have very clear concepts of what god is and the real world tends to disprove them. nobody has ever seen god. no human being has ever done what they claim jesus did. many other stories of the same age feature similar tales of miraculous feats, the paradox of an all-powerful and all-loving god that created suffering, etc. i can offer proof that the weight of the evidence strongly supports no god more than the christian god/jesus. so for now, that is the presumption i will live by. and they ARE trying to convince me what to believe.

what are you trying to convince me of? that i can never know anything? i'm sorry, but i don't live by waffling on all important real problems to avoid taking a stand. you're urging me to... what? keep an open mind? i already have that. it is not mutually exclusive with knowledge you know. the problem you have is that my mind is not open in the exact same way yours is... so open that there's nothing in there becos to have something in there might come dangerously close to actually having to focus on real issues instead of abstract existential philosophy.

but it doesnt mean he isnt a murderer. just that he hasnt been caught yet if he is.

soulsinging

he still stands wrote:

so as a lawyer, tell me, can you sentence someone to death with a preponderance of evidence?

nope. but i'm also not talking about killing people based on my views. notably, many religious folks are.

catefrances

Random_Wookie wrote:

But if no one observes the tree falling, how do we know that tree did not start in that position. The same can be said the with Schrödinger's cat as to the tree, we can not tell the state of either until it they are observed (we would need to have been in the forest at some point to see if the chosen tree was actually standing).

I believe (yes I said believe) that there is enough evidence out there to prove man's current set of religions wrong, thus invalidating them and the should be stopped for benifit of mankind. I am not saying there is a god or there is not a god, but so far I am going side with the later. I can not remember who said it on this thread but they said they literally believe in the bible, how can you do that when it is meant to be the word of god. This statement in itself would indicate a lack of faith in the religion that you are associating with.

scientific evidence will show that the tree did in fact fall and that a prone position wasnt where it started.

soulsinging

catefrances wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

preponderance of evidence IS good enough for me. and if new evidence comes to light, i'll reevaluate my decision on appeal

i don't have any proof that the guy in the next office is not a murderer, but i deem him not a murderer becos nobody has ever indicated he is, most people are not murderers, most murderers get caught, and he is still working in the office next to me.

the burden of persuasion is on the person seeking to establish the fact. i don't give a flying fuck what you believe about god and have no interest in trying to convince you. hell, i don't even know what "kind" of god you're asking me to disprove. it's a term with so many meanings i can't even begin to guess which you're discussing, let alone try to disprove it.

but i will argue against christianity, or islam, or judaism becos they have very clear concepts of what god is and the real world tends to disprove them. nobody has ever seen god. no human being has ever done what they claim jesus did. many other stories of the same age feature similar tales of miraculous feats, the paradox of an all-powerful and all-loving god that created suffering, etc. i can offer proof that the weight of the evidence strongly supports no god more than the christian god/jesus. so for now, that is the presumption i will live by. and they ARE trying to convince me what to believe.

what are you trying to convince me of? that i can never know anything? i'm sorry, but i don't live by waffling on all important real problems to avoid taking a stand. you're urging me to... what? keep an open mind? i already have that. it is not mutually exclusive with knowledge you know. the problem you have is that my mind is not open in the exact same way yours is... so open that there's nothing in there becos to have something in there might come dangerously close to actually having to focus on real issues instead of abstract existential philosophy.

but it doesnt mean he isnt a murderer. just that he hasnt been caught yet if he is.

but the evidence suggests he isn't and in terms of my day to day life, it makes far more sense for me to accept the weight of the evidence and deal with him like any other good coworker as opposed to sitting in my office constantly worrying about whether the guy next door is a murderer and if he's coming for me next. the latter is a very unproductive way to go through life.

he still stands

Random_Wookie wrote:

But if no one observes the tree falling, how do we know that tree did not start in that position. The same can be said the with Schrödinger's cat as to the tree, we can not tell the state of either until it they are observed (we would need to have been in the forest at some point to see if the chosen tree was actually standing).

I believe (yes I said believe) that there is enough evidence out there to prove man's current set of religions wrong, thus invalidating them and the should be stopped for benifit of mankind. I am not saying there is a god or there is not a god, but so far I am going side with the later. I can not remember who said it on this thread but they said they literally believe in the bible, how can you do that when it is meant to be the word of god. This statement in itself would indicate a lack of faith in the religion that you are associating with.

....I did not bring up the "tree falling" issue... I brought up the observer effect... not the old Confuscious type of philosophy. Someone else interpreted it that way.

as far as you believing in "enough evidence out there to prove man's current set of religions wrong" I would agree in a literal sense of western religion. But, again, I don't know of many people who take the bible literally... other than Fundamentalists. ... But what of eastern religions? And as far as "stopping (them) for the benefit of mankind" that is kinda along the same lines of what Hitler was trying to do...

he still stands

soulsinging wrote:

he still stands wrote:

so as a lawyer, tell me, can you sentence someone to death with a preponderance of evidence?

nope. but i'm also not talking about killing people based on my views. notably, many religious folks are.

it was a rhetorical question and by the spin response I assume you don't want to confront my point... which I'm sure you grasp.

catefrances

soulsinging wrote:

catefrances wrote:

but it doesnt mean he isnt a murderer. just that he hasnt been caught yet if he is.

but the evidence suggests he isn't and in terms of my day to day life, it makes far more sense for me to accept the weight of the evidence and deal with him like any other good coworker as opposed to sitting in my office constantly worrying about whether the guy next door is a murderer and if he's coming for me next. the latter is a very unproductive way to go through life.

what evidence??? can no evidence be seen as evidence??

you said most murderers get caught and based on the fact that this guy is still working in the office next door youve made the decision the man NOT a murderer. you know as well as i do that the continued success of serial killers relies on the fact that they look just like the rest of us. they manipulate us into thinking theyre not murderers by parroting socially acceptable behaviour, when in fact theyve got 15 bodies buried in the crawlspace under the kitchen. they thrive on thinking just like yours conor.

im not suggesting this man is a murderer...but that doesnt mean he isnt.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

soulsinging wrote:

the burden of persuasion is on the person seeking to establish the fact.

this is EXACTLY the point I made earlier. Soul, you just put it much better than I did. Unfortunately, during this kind of discussion, whomever is trying to convince us god exists (or trying to point out that he doesn't NOT exist :roll: ), turns around and says they weren't actually trying to convince us of anything.

It's the same old runaround.

Random_Wookie

he still stands wrote:

Random_Wookie wrote:

But if no one observes the tree falling, how do we know that tree did not start in that position. The same can be said the with Schrödinger's cat as to the tree, we can not tell the state of either until it they are observed (we would need to have been in the forest at some point to see if the chosen tree was actually standing).

I believe (yes I said believe) that there is enough evidence out there to prove man's current set of religions wrong, thus invalidating them and the should be stopped for benifit of mankind. I am not saying there is a god or there is not a god, but so far I am going side with the later. I can not remember who said it on this thread but they said they literally believe in the bible, how can you do that when it is meant to be the word of god. This statement in itself would indicate a lack of faith in the religion that you are associating with.

....I did not bring up the "tree falling" issue... I brought up the observer effect... not the old Confuscious type of philosophy. Someone else interpreted it that way.

as far as you believing in "enough evidence out there to prove man's current set of religions wrong" I would agree in a literal sense of western religion. But, again, I don't know of many people who take the bible literally... other than Fundamentalists. ... But what of eastern religions? And as far as "stopping (them) for the benefit of mankind" that is kinda along the same lines of what Hitler was trying to do...

is not the tree issues and the observer effect one in the same?

but if you dont take a 'holy book' (lack of a better word) literally, then that would indicate that you belive it too be wrong. Which in turn would indicate that you believe it to be wrong. Well atleast in some sense, so therefore why allign ones self with something that you dont believe fully. Who is up for starting a religion?

catefrances

Random_Wookie wrote:

... Who is up for starting a religion?

ive done better than that. i am my own God.

Random_Wookie

catefrances wrote:

Random_Wookie wrote:

... Who is up for starting a religion?

ive done better than that. i am my own God.

nice, i suppose in a way we all are our own god

Hugh Freaking Dillon

he still stands wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

this is the same thing as the age-old "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound". Of COURSE it makes a sound. Sound need not be in the presence of an ear to exist.

in my eyes, there is no locality problem. if it exists, it exists, it doesn't take human eyes laid upon to make it so.

but just because we don't observe it, doesn't necessarily mean it DOES exist, either.

come on people... do a little reading before you form a baseless opinion:

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observ ... in_science

"In science, the term observer effect means that the act of observing will influence the phenomenon being observed."

so, by your logic, you didn't become a condescending prick by writing this post, but only after someone read it?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

catefrances wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

catefrances wrote:

but it doesnt mean he isnt a murderer. just that he hasnt been caught yet if he is.

but the evidence suggests he isn't and in terms of my day to day life, it makes far more sense for me to accept the weight of the evidence and deal with him like any other good coworker as opposed to sitting in my office constantly worrying about whether the guy next door is a murderer and if he's coming for me next. the latter is a very unproductive way to go through life.

what evidence??? can no evidence be seen as evidence??

you said most murderers get caught and based on the fact that this guy is still working in the office next door youve made the decision the man NOT a murderer. you know as well as i do that the continued success of serial killers relies on the fact that they look just like the rest of us. they manipulate us into thinking theyre not murderers by parroting socially acceptable behaviour, when in fact theyve got 15 bodies buried in the crawlspace under the kitchen. they thrive on thinking just like yours conor.

im not suggesting this man is a murderer...but that doesnt mean he isnt.

no, but simple logical reasoning tells us he isn't until we suspect differently.

soulsinging

he still stands wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

he still stands wrote:

so as a lawyer, tell me, can you sentence someone to death with a preponderance of evidence?

nope. but i'm also not talking about killing people based on my views. notably, many religious folks are.

it was a rhetorical question and by the spin response I assume you don't want to confront my point... which I'm sure you grasp.

no, i've no clue what your point was. but if you care to clarify, i'd be happy to have a go at an answer.