Materialist Bias?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-01-2014, 02:29 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
I grabbed it from Darwin's Autobiography, which is online. My point was he didn't have the agenda of proving god didn't exist or Genesis was merely symbolic. He struggled with letting go of his faith, he didn't actively want to lose it. No agenda, just science.

Check out my atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 02:42 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(27-12-2013 08:47 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  So, what is "Materialist bias"? From the context, it looks like if we are assuming that things that we can observe have precedence over things that we cannot or have not yet, it is somehow biased. I suppose this is true in the strictest sense of the word, but to give that any weight seems like it make it impossible to function in the real world.
Materialist bias (or better said, positivist bias) is a real problem - for example, when the neurological science progressed a little in 20th century, science went overboard with stuff like eugenics, lobotomy, LSD, Milgram's experiment, Tuskegee syphilis study, child assaulting (still continuing today), these were the wild times. We didn't know what we were doing, because our material scientific instruments were not very good at telling us about the amount of human suffering and permanent damage that these practices produce. The damage was real and there, but it took a long time till it was detectable with our instruments. Was the damage avoidable? I believe it was. If people were brought up peacefully and taught good, critical thinking, how to search and know the truth, how to know themselves and so on, they would not torture children (a.k.a. spanking), cut their brains, balls, let black men untreated syphilis get lethal (racism), etc.

The same may apply to things that don't register reliably on our instruments, because they weren't built for that kind of sensitivity, but still affect us without our knowledge. If there are more kinds of matter, such as normal matter and dark matter, then we'd need a dark matter instrument to register dark matter strongly as the instrument of normal matter registers normal matter. That kind of a problem, just a quick example.
I mean, Occam's razor is a useful thing, but it can reject counter-evidence not because it's not good enough, but because it didn't get enough investment, attention or a push in a good direction to develop some better, specialized instrument.

That being said, I'd protest in such a way only when it's relevant in some way, not when it's about the miracles of Jesus.

(27-12-2013 08:47 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  So far as I can tell, if I'm looking for cars before I cross the road, I see a car, and wait for it to pass, I'm being biased, or something. I suppose it's technically possible that I'm in the Matrix and I could jump over the car if I wanted, or maybe the car is a ghost car and insubstantial, or something. I guess I don't know that, and that is some weird form of bias, but it seems like an incredibly useful bias to have. So far as I can tell, to actually be truly unbiased in this sense of the word, you wold have to be functionally, and quite literally insane. Like, you have to simultaneously assume there are and are not poltergeists moving your car keys on you, or else you're biased.

This looks like one of those cute things that you discuss in a single class of Philosophy 101 and then promptly put on a shelf since it seems to be useless in the really real world.

So, what did I miss? Is that it? Is this just a thing to say when someone proves you wrong with evidence? Did I misrepresent something, because that's seriously what I could glean from the context of the original thread, and it just seems weird and useless.
Nah, seems like a presupposition to me, only the thing pre-supposed is logically incoherent. You have to begin with some internal coherence, then check if it contradicts science (which is something that must not be necessary contradicted) and only then it is worth to look for a positive evidence. That is the way to cut the most crap with the least amount of work. If something isn't internally coherent (like Bible), you can see it right away and need not go much further.

The problem with insanity is, that people with low IQ can't handle it. Insanity with high IQ really lets you appreciate rationality, because you get to see it from the outside Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 02:43 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(07-01-2014 02:19 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:Do we have evidence that Jesus was crucified or that Paul suffered other than from the Bible?
Here's materialist bias. Why must something be outside the Bible to count as evidence? The Bible is a collection, you know. Luke verifies that Paul suffered, unless you reject anything in the Bible out of hand.

OH, look -- we are back to Square One, and the whole purpose of this "materialist bias" horseshit: AssholeGurl wants to be able to sneak his fairy-tale book into the "Evidence" pile.

Rolleyes


PS: You're also going to have to allow nonsense like the Lotus Sutra (and boy, is that ever a mess), and every other fantastical story to be used as "evidence", and every one of them is going to carry equal evidentiary weight as your own fairy-tale book. Effectively nulling each other out. Including your fairy tale book.

Check, and Mate.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
07-01-2014, 02:43 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
Quote:I grabbed it from Darwin's Autobiography, which is online.
So did I, and before you did.
Quote:My point was he didn't have the agenda of proving god didn't exist or Genesis was merely symbolic. He struggled with letting go of his faith, he didn't actively want to lose it. No agenda, just science.
And I showed the agenda from the same section. He didn't like the thought of hell, but needed a natural alternative to the argument from design in order to discard it. At best, you can claim that we're both supported, and Darwin contradicted himself in the space of a page.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 02:49 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(07-01-2014 01:50 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  The only claims of these extraordinary powers of Jesus are contained in the Bible. What exactly will you point to as evidence of these signs? The Bible? It sounds equally circular.

Why should we take the Bible any more seriously than we should take the Koran?

And the Lotus Sutra. Don't forget the fucking Lotus Sutra. Heh.:


http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/lotus/lot01.htm


Thus have I heard. Once upon a time the Lord was staying at Râgagriha, on the Gridhrakuta mountain, with a numerous assemblage of monks, twelve hundred monks, all of them Arhats, stainless, free from depravity, self-controlled, thoroughly emancipated in thought and knowledge, of noble breed, (like unto) great elephants, having done their task, done their duty, acquitted their charge, reached the goal; in whom the ties which bound them to existence were wholly destroyed, whose minds were thoroughly emancipated by perfect knowledge, who had reached the utmost perfection in subduing all their thoughts; who were possessed of the transcendent faculties; eminent disciples, such as the venerable Agñâta-Kaundinya, the venerable Asvagit, the venerable Vâshpa, the venerable Mahânâman, the venerable Bhadrikal, the venerable Mahâ-Kâsyapa, the venerable Kâsyapa of Uruvilvâ, the venerable Kâsyapa of Nadi, the venerable Kâsyapa of Gayâ, the venerable Sâriputra, the venerable Mahâ-Maudgalyâyana, the venerable Mahâ-Kâtyâyana, the venerable Aniruddha, the venerable Revata, the venerable Kapphina, the venerable Gavâmpati, the venerable Pilindavatsa, the venerable Vakula, the venerable Bhâradvâga, the venerable Mahâ-Kaushthila, the venerable Nanda (alias Mahânanda), the venerable Upananda, the venerable Sundara-Nanda, the venerable Pûrna Maitrâyanîputra, the venerable Subhûti, the venerable Râhula; with them yet other great disciples, as the venerable Ananda, still under training, and two thousand other monks, some of whom still under training, the others masters; with six thousand nuns having at their head Mahâpragâpatî, and the nun Yasodharâ, the mother of Râhula, along with her train; (further) with eighty thousand Bodhisattvas, all unable to slide back, endowed with the spells of supreme, perfect enlightenment, firmly standing in wisdom; who moved onward the never deviating wheel of the law; who had propitiated many hundred thousands of Buddhas; who under many hundred thousands of Buddhas had planted the roots of goodness, had been intimate with many hundred thousands of Buddhas, were in body and mind fully penetrated with the feeling of charity; able in communicating the wisdom of the Tathâgatas; very wise, having reached the perfection of wisdom; renowned in many hundred thousands of worlds; having saved many hundred thousand myriads of kotis of beings; such as the Bodhisattva Mahâsattva Mañgusrî, as prince royal; the Bodhisattvas Mahâsattvas Avalokitesvara, Mahâsthâmaprâpta, Sarvarthanâman, Nityodyukta, Anikshiptadhura, Ratnakandra, Bhaishagyarâga, Pradânasûra, Ratnakandra, Ratnaprabha, Pûrnakandra, Mahivikrâmin, Trailokavikrâmin, Anantavikrâmin, Mahâpratibhâna, Satatasamitâbhiyukta, Dharanîdhara, Akshayamati, Padmasrî, Nakshatrarâga, the Bodhisattva Mahâsattva Maitreya, the Bodhisattva Mahâsattva Simha.

With them were also the sixteen virtuous men to begin with Bhadrapâla, to wit, Bhadrapâla, Ratnikara, Susârthavâha, Naradatta, Guhagupta, Varunadatta, Indradatta, Uttaramati, Viseshamati, Vardhamânamati, Amoghadarsin, Susamsthita, Suvikrântavikrâmin, Anupamamati, Sûryagarbha, and Dharanidhara; besides eighty thousand Bodhisattvas, among whom the fore-mentioned were the chiefs; further Sakra, the ruler of the celestials, with twenty thousand gods, his followers, such as the god Kandra (the Moon), the god Sûrya (the Sun), the god Samantagandha (the Wind), the god Ratnaprabha, the god Avabhâsaprabha, and others; further, the four great rulers of the cardinal points with thirty thousand gods in their train, viz. the great ruler Virûdhaka, the great ruler Virûpâksha, the great ruler Dhritarâshtra, and the great ruler Vaisravana; the god Îsvara and the god Mahesvara, each followed by thirty thousand gods; further, Brahma Sahdmpati and his twelve thousand followers, the BrahmakAyika gods, amongst whom Brahma Sikhin and Brahma Gyotishprabha, with the other twelve thousand Brahmakdyika gods; together with the eight Nâga kings and many hundred thousand myriads of kotis of Nigas in their train, viz. the Nâga king Nanda, the Nâga king Upananda, Sâgara, Vâsuki, Takshaka, Manasvin, Anavatapta, and Utpalaka; further, the four Kinnara kings with many hundred thousand myriads of kotis of followers, viz. the Kinnara king Druma, the Kinnara king Mahâdharma, the Kinnara king Sudharma, and the Kinnara king Dharmadhara; besides, the four divine beings (called) Gandharvakâyikas with many hundred thousand Gandharvas in their suite, viz. the Gandharva Manogña, the Gandharva Manogñasvara, the Gandharva Madhura, and the Gandharva Madhurasvara; further, the four chiefs of the demons followed by many hundred thousand myriads of kotis of demons, viz. the chief of the demons Bali, Kharaskandha, Vemakitri, and Râhu; along with the four Garuda chiefs followed by many hundred thousand myriads of kotis of Garudas, viz. the Garuda chiefs Mahâtegas, Mahâkâya, Mahâpûrna, and Mahârddhiprâpta, and with Agâtasatru, king of Magadha, the son of Vaidehi.

Now at that time it was that the Lord surrounded, attended, honoured, revered, venerated, worshipped by the four classes of hearers, after expounding the Dharmaparyâya called 'the Great Exposition,' a text of great development, serving to instruct Bodhisattvas and proper to all Buddhas, sat cross-legged on the seat of the law and entered upon the meditation termed 'the station of the exposition of Infinity;' his body was motionless and his mind had reached perfect tranquillity. And as soon as the Lord had entered upon his meditation, there fell a great rain of divine flowers, Mandâravasâ and great Mandâravas, Mañgûshakas and great Mañgûshakas, covering the Lord and the four classes of hearers, while the whole Buddha field shook in six ways: it moved, removed, trembled, trembled from one end to the other, tossed, tossed along.

Then did those who were assembled and sitting together in that congregation, monks, nuns, male and female lay devotees, gods, Nagas, goblins, Gandharvas, demons, Garudas, Kinnaras, great serpents, men, and beings not human, as well as governors of a region, rulers of armies and rulers of four continents, all of them with their followers, gaze on the Lord in astonishment, in amazement, in ecstasy.

And at that moment there issued a ray from within the circle of hair between the eyebrows of the Lord. It extended over eighteen hundred thousand Buddha-fields in the eastern quarter, so that all those Buddha-fields appeared wholly illuminated by its radiance, down to the great hell Avîki and up to the limit of existence. And the beings in any of the six states of existence became visible, all without exception. Likewise the Lords Buddhas staying, living, and existing in those Buddha-fields became all visible, and the law preached by them could be entirely heard by all beings. And the monks, nuns, lay devotees male and female, Yogins and students of Yoga, those who had obtained the fruition (of the Paths of sanctification) and those who had not, they, too, became visible. And the Bodhisattvas Mahâsattvas in those Buddha-fields who plied the Bodhisattva-course with ability, due to their earnest belief in numerous and various lessons and the fundamental ideas, they, too, became all visible. Likewise the Lords Buddhas in those Buddha-fields who had reached final Nirvâna became visible, all of them. And the Stûpas made of jewels and containing the relics of the extinct Buddhas became all visible in those Buddha-fields.

Then rose in the mind of the Bodhisattva Mahâsattva Maitreya this thought: O how great a wonder does the Tathâgata display! What may be the cause, what the reason of the Lord producing so great a wonder as this? And such astonishing, prodigious, inconceivable, powerful miracles now appear, although the Lord is absorbed in meditation! Why, let me inquire about this matter; who would be able here to explain it to me? He then thought: Here is Mañgusrî, the prince royal, who has plied his office under former Ginas and planted the roots of goodness, while worshipping many Buddhas. This Mañgusrî, the prince royal, must have witnessed before such signs of the former Tathâgatas, those Arhats, those perfectly enlightened Buddhas; of yore he must have enjoyed the grand conversations on the law. Therefore will I inquire about this matter with Mañgusrî, the prince royal.

And the four classes of the audience, monks, nuns, male and female lay devotees, numerous gods, Nâgas, goblins, Gandharvas, demons, Garudas, Kinnaras, great serpents, men, and beings not human, on seeing the magnificence of this great miracle of the Lord, were struck with astonishment, amazement and curiosity, and thought: Let us inquire why this magnificent miracle has been produced by the great power of the Lord.

At the same moment, at that very instant, the Bodhisattva Mahâsattva Maitreya knew in his mind the thoughts arising in the minds of the four classes of hearers and he spoke to Mañgusrî, the prince royal: What, O Mañgusrî, is the cause, what is the reason of this wonderful, prodigious, miraculous shine having been produced by the Lord? Look, how these eighteen thousand Buddha-fields appear variegated, extremely beautiful, directed by Tathâgatas and superintended by Tathâgatas.



Blah, blah, blah, and so on.



It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 02:54 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(07-01-2014 02:19 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(07-01-2014 10:57 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Do we have evidence that Jesus was crucified or that Paul suffered other than from the Bible?
Here's materialist bias. Why must something be outside the Bible to count as evidence? The Bible is a collection, you know. Luke verifies that Paul suffered, unless you reject anything in the Bible out of hand.

You stupid fucktard, that's not material bias, it's demanding evidence and a lack of circular reasoning. You need sources other than the Bible to attest the validity of the Bible, and outside of things that are superficially true (Herod was King of Judea, etc.), the Bible contradicts itself and most every other contemporary account of history.

The added chapters of Matthew (because the oldest and best copies lack the infancy narrative) claim Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea during the reign of Herod the King; himself reigning from 37 - 4 BC. Luke claims that Jesus was born when the first census was taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria; Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed Governor of Syria by Emperor Caesar Augustus in 6 AD. The consensus of history, built upon the multiple contemporaneous accounts that confirm these dates, that they are accurate beyond a reasonable doubt. The only anomaly is the Bible, which claims that one event happened and attempts to triangulate that event in history with two other events that are a decade apart from one another.

So what is more likely, that all of the concurrent contemporaneous accounts that attest to Herod's death and Quirinius' governorship are all wrong? Or that the Bible contains a contradiction? Rejecting the infancy narratives on these grounds is not a materialist bias, it's a reasonable conclusion brought about by the evaluation of the known evidence. Only someone adhering to the dogmatic and illogical stance of biblical inerrancy would posit the later approach, and anyone taking that position it too intellectually dishonest and ignorant to bother with. Drinking Beverage



http://nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/luke/luke2.htm

Although universal registrations of Roman citizens are attested in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and A.D. 14 and enrollments in individual provinces of those who are not Roman citizens are also attested, such a universal census of the Roman world under Caesar Augustus is unknown outside the New Testament. Moreover, there are notorious historical problems connected with Luke's dating the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, and the various attempts to resolve the difficulties have proved unsuccessful. P. Sulpicius Quirinius became legate of the province of Syria in A.D. 6-7 when Judea was annexed to the province of Syria. At that time, a provincial census of Judea was taken up. If Quirinius had been legate of Syria previously, it would have to have been before 10 B.C. because the various legates of Syria from 10 B.C. to 4 B.C. (the death of Herod) are known, and such a dating for an earlier census under Quirinius would create additional problems for dating the beginning of Jesus' ministry (Luke 3:1, 23). A previous legateship after 4 B.C. (and before A.D. 6) would not fit with the dating of Jesus' birth in the days of Herod (Luke 1:5; Matthew 2:1). Luke may simply be combining Jesus' birth in Bethlehem with his vague recollection of a census under Quirinius (see also Acts 5:37) to underline the significance of this birth for the whole Roman world: through this child born in Bethlehem peace and salvation come to the empire.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
07-01-2014, 02:58 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(07-01-2014 02:54 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You stupid fucktard, that's not material bias, it's demanding evidence and a lack of circular reasoning.

What part of "*I* don't need no steenking EVIDENCE, and neither should YOU!" do fail to grasp?

Tongue

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 03:02 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(07-01-2014 02:43 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
Quote:I grabbed it from Darwin's Autobiography, which is online.
So did I, and before you did.
Quote:My point was he didn't have the agenda of proving god didn't exist or Genesis was merely symbolic. He struggled with letting go of his faith, he didn't actively want to lose it. No agenda, just science.
And I showed the agenda from the same section. He didn't like the thought of hell, but needed a natural alternative to the argument from design in order to discard it. At best, you can claim that we're both supported, and Darwin contradicted himself in the space of a page.

I only looked through his autobiography because you couldn't be trusted to quote the entire excerpt. Quite a few biographical pieces (publications and visual media) tell the story of Darwin's struggle with this, especially as it pertained to his wife.

And you're now stretching, for his research began with admiration, not an agenda. If there was an agenda in the end, it wasn't what sparked the theory or work.

Check out my atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 03:07 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(07-01-2014 02:54 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You stupid fucktard,
Here's fair warning that more of this puts you on ignore.
Quote:So what is more likely, that all of the concurrent contemporaneous accounts that attest to Herod's death and Quirinius' governorship are all wrong?
Huh? All we've heard from so far are Josephus and Tacitus, neither of which were contemporaneous to the events, and only one of which mentioned Quirinius.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 03:13 PM
RE: Materialist Bias?
(07-01-2014 03:07 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(07-01-2014 02:54 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You stupid fucktard,
Here's fair warning that more of this puts you on ignore.

[Image: 388345925_503cb1c158_o.jpg]

Rolleyes

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: