Materialist Bias?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-01-2014, 09:29 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
Till somebody answers the question of "Q" the rest is sketchy.......

and not This Q
[Image: 250px-Q_portrait.jpg]

Although I always thought it was No mistake Q had such a name, was mysterious, unattainable and vanished whenever he pleased.....
mostly popping up to confuse and make fun of puny humans......................



yeah......... that was no goof.

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2014, 10:26 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(04-01-2014 07:34 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  That being said, if you are here to challenge your own beliefs, why do you almost never post them? I seldom see you make an actual assertion of your own belief (outside if the "deeper relationships" claim you made in my Heaven/PoE thread) and instead choose to try to pick apart other assertions.
Yes, other assertions which challenge my beliefs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2014, 02:15 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(02-01-2014 01:09 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The Outsider Test for Faith.

I'd challenge alpha male to take it, but I know he doesn't have the intellectual honesty to do it. Drinking Beverage
OTF is intellectual laziness. There are differences in evidence for various religious claims. We've already talked about one - whether a statement was actually intended as a serious claim or not. We've applied it to FSM and Harry Potter, but it also applies to some extent to the ancient Greek gods and others. We don't know enough about the originators of many gods to know if they intended them to be taken seriously or were just writing stories which were taken beyond the original intent over decades and centuries.

Another criterion is extraordinary evidence. When someone makes the extraordinary claim that they're speaking for god, it's reasonable to expect extraordinary evidence to back it up. The earliest Christian writings include the extraordinary. John even has Jesus using the principle himself - if you don't believe my arguments, at least believe the signs I do. However, with Islam, when Mohamed was asked for extraordinary evidence, he merely presented the Koran - completely circular.

Some religions claim to be based on previously established religions. One can assess which are more or less compatible with the previous religions.

The motivations of the originators can also be assessed. We generally accept the word of a person who has little to gain or something to lose for their testimony, over that of someone who stands to gain from their testimony. For example, Jesus was crucified and Paul suffered in numerous ways, but Mohamed increased his worldly position.

As I said in another thread, finding differentiators between religious claims isn't difficult. It's laziness and bias to just lump them all together as equal in worth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2014, 02:19 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(04-01-2014 02:15 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(02-01-2014 01:09 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The Outsider Test for Faith.

I'd challenge alpha male to take it, but I know he doesn't have the intellectual honesty to do it. Drinking Beverage
OTF is intellectual laziness. There are differences in evidence for various religious claims. We've already talked about one - whether a statement was actually intended as a serious claim or not. We've applied it to FSM and Harry Potter, but it also applies to some extent to the ancient Greek gods and others. We don't know enough about the originators of many gods to know if they intended them to be taken seriously or were just writing stories which were taken beyond the original intent over decades and centuries.

Another criterion is extraordinary evidence. When someone makes the extraordinary claim that they're speaking for god, it's reasonable to expect extraordinary evidence to back it up. The earliest Christian writings include the extraordinary. John even has Jesus using the principle himself - if you don't believe my arguments, at least believe the signs I do. However, with Islam, when Mohamed was asked for extraordinary evidence, he merely presented the Koran - completely circular.

Some religions claim to be based on previously established religions. One can assess which are more or less compatible with the previous religions.

The motivations of the originators can also be assessed. We generally accept the word of a person who has little to gain or something to lose for their testimony, over that of someone who stands to gain from their testimony. For example, Jesus was crucified and Paul suffered in numerous ways, but Mohamed increased his worldly position.

As I said in another thread, finding differentiators between religious claims isn't difficult. It's laziness and bias to just lump them all together as equal in worth.

It is only your bias that prevents you from applying the same standards to your own religion. The Bible is no better evidence than the Qur'an. The Book of Mormon is no better evidence than the Bible. And so on.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
04-01-2014, 02:27 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(04-01-2014 02:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-01-2014 02:15 PM)alpha male Wrote:  OTF is intellectual laziness. There are differences in evidence for various religious claims. We've already talked about one - whether a statement was actually intended as a serious claim or not. We've applied it to FSM and Harry Potter, but it also applies to some extent to the ancient Greek gods and others. We don't know enough about the originators of many gods to know if they intended them to be taken seriously or were just writing stories which were taken beyond the original intent over decades and centuries.

Another criterion is extraordinary evidence. When someone makes the extraordinary claim that they're speaking for god, it's reasonable to expect extraordinary evidence to back it up. The earliest Christian writings include the extraordinary. John even has Jesus using the principle himself - if you don't believe my arguments, at least believe the signs I do. However, with Islam, when Mohamed was asked for extraordinary evidence, he merely presented the Koran - completely circular.

Some religions claim to be based on previously established religions. One can assess which are more or less compatible with the previous religions.

The motivations of the originators can also be assessed. We generally accept the word of a person who has little to gain or something to lose for their testimony, over that of someone who stands to gain from their testimony. For example, Jesus was crucified and Paul suffered in numerous ways, but Mohamed increased his worldly position.

As I said in another thread, finding differentiators between religious claims isn't difficult. It's laziness and bias to just lump them all together as equal in worth.

It is only your bias that prevents you from applying the same standards to your own religion. The Bible is no better evidence than the Qur'an. The Book of Mormon is no better evidence than the Bible. And so on.


Makes me wonder just how (really) someone with self-defined bias can see things objectively. Or - mores the point - IF they *want* to -- ?

As far as Alphas concerned - no one here need lump anything together - we could pick things apart all day long - and sometimes we do. But lots of us make little effort in the face of such predetermination & stubbonism. It's not laziness as much as self-preservation and the drive to steer clear from time-wasting efforts.


Besides - Does ANYone get the *Q* reference? lol

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2014, 02:33 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(04-01-2014 02:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  It is only your bias that prevents you from applying the same standards to your own religion. The Bible is no better evidence than the Qur'an. The Book of Mormon is no better evidence than the Bible. And so on.
Er, no, I applied those standards to my own religion and showed how it fared better than some others. You quoted me doing it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2014, 02:36 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(04-01-2014 02:33 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(04-01-2014 02:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  It is only your bias that prevents you from applying the same standards to your own religion. The Bible is no better evidence than the Qur'an. The Book of Mormon is no better evidence than the Bible. And so on.
Er, no, I applied those standards to my own religion and showed how it fared better than some others. You quoted me doing it.

No, you made a show of it. You didn't actually employ critical thinking in the attempt.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
04-01-2014, 03:39 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(04-01-2014 02:15 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(02-01-2014 01:09 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The Outsider Test for Faith.

I'd challenge alpha male to take it, but I know he doesn't have the intellectual honesty to do it. Drinking Beverage
OTF is intellectual laziness. There are differences in evidence for various religious claims. We've already talked about one - whether a statement was actually intended as a serious claim or not. We've applied it to FSM and Harry Potter, but it also applies to some extent to the ancient Greek gods and others. We don't know enough about the originators of many gods to know if they intended them to be taken seriously or were just writing stories which were taken beyond the original intent over decades and centuries.

Another criterion is extraordinary evidence. When someone makes the extraordinary claim that they're speaking for god, it's reasonable to expect extraordinary evidence to back it up. The earliest Christian writings include the extraordinary. John even has Jesus using the principle himself - if you don't believe my arguments, at least believe the signs I do. However, with Islam, when Mohamed was asked for extraordinary evidence, he merely presented the Koran - completely circular.

Some religions claim to be based on previously established religions. One can assess which are more or less compatible with the previous religions.

The motivations of the originators can also be assessed. We generally accept the word of a person who has little to gain or something to lose for their testimony, over that of someone who stands to gain from their testimony. For example, Jesus was crucified and Paul suffered in numerous ways, but Mohamed increased his worldly position.

As I said in another thread, finding differentiators between religious claims isn't difficult. It's laziness and bias to just lump them all together as equal in worth.

Wow, I knew you were stupid and intellectually dishonest; but even that is a new low for you. Blink

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
04-01-2014, 09:23 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(04-01-2014 10:26 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(04-01-2014 07:34 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  That being said, if you are here to challenge your own beliefs, why do you almost never post them? I seldom see you make an actual assertion of your own belief (outside if the "deeper relationships" claim you made in my Heaven/PoE thread) and instead choose to try to pick apart other assertions.
Yes, other assertions which challenge my beliefs.

What are those beliefs? For example: you'd keep saying you never said anything about the age of the earth and that you were just pointing out that there is at least one piece of evidence that doesn't point to a billions-year-old earth. How old do you think it is?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 03:48 AM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(04-01-2014 09:23 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  What are those beliefs?
My beliefs are too numerous to list and discuss in a single thread. Do you have a problem with me discussing one or two at a time as they come up on the forum? If so...why???
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: