Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-04-2016, 02:20 PM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
"I didn’t grow up with many people telling me stuff, nor did I grow up in an authoritative home, and most of the immediate adult influences in my life barely even spoke English, and devoted much of their time to the pressing concerns of managing their adult life in a foreign country. As a result I had considerably more autonomy as a child, than perhaps most children do, with no one to tell me I should think this way or that way, or that I shouldn’t believe this or that."

Facepalm
You clearly don't realize the depth of the bullshit of lies in your posts, but I find it hard to believe that you believe this shit. For all of the supposed interest you have in the ways in which children learn and are taught, you think you and your upbringing in society were unique? Laugh out load

Edit to add: You aren't a unique case study in human development.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2016, 02:49 PM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(05-04-2016 02:20 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Edit to add: You aren't a unique case study in human development.

Unless you were born in a third world country, grew up in country that was not your own, grew up in a church where they didn't even speak the same language, are not white, than yes we do have some fundamental differences in our upbringing. You likely wouldn't be able to identify much with my life, anymore so than I would be with yours.
We both occupy spaces quite foreign to each other. This doesn't make my experiences anymore unique than yours, but I'm just pointing out there's likely to be some fundamental differences here.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2016, 02:52 PM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(05-04-2016 02:49 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-04-2016 02:20 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Edit to add: You aren't a unique case study in human development.

Unless you were born in a third world country, grew up in country that was not your own, grew up in a church where they didn't even speak the same language, are not white, than yes we do have some fundamental differences in our upbringing. You likely wouldn't be able to identify much with my life, anymore so than I would be with yours.
We both occupy spaces quite foreign to each other. This doesn't make my experiences anymore unique than yours, but I'm just pointing out there's likely to be some fundamental differences here.

Once again, you are rambling about something I didn't say Drinking Beverage

You did not grow up free of the influence of society or your parents. Your upbringing was not devoid of you being taught about religion and society and culture, etc.

You are not a unique case study. Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2016, 11:53 PM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
regardless of how improvable it is, the vastness of the universe is so great that it happening only once is complete heresy to even consider that as a possibility.

That also does not account for any other kinds of life there could be out there. For all we know, carbon based life forms could be only one way of life forming. There could be Silicon based life, Sulfur based life forms or even Mercury based life forms. We don't really know.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2016, 07:56 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
Thanks for the citations, I'll check them out.

(05-04-2016 02:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Challenging religious claim has a long history while folks who a lacked a belief in God, were fairly non-existent for much of human history.

Do you not think that the fear of being ostracized or killed had something to do with this? Also, we do know that there were people who did challenge the establishment (i.e. Democratis, Epicurus, Socrates, etc.) back then. These are just the ones we know of. Your claim is totally unsubstantiated.


(05-04-2016 02:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  And it’s primarily in the advent of Darwinism, that an anti-religious side previously occupied by deist, were able to formulate an alternative to a teleological views.

Darwinism/evolution has nothing to do with an anti-religious movement at it's core. It is merely a means of explaining the world as we know it based on the evidence we can obtain. That's it. Now, some people may take it and use it to attack a man-made establishment like the church, but that is because evolution by natural selection provided a testable mechanism to challenge certain doctrines. Not all, just some. This however, is not the same thing as what it sounds like you are saying. Evolutionary theory just gave us a tool to test whether the claims made by the religious were true.


(05-04-2016 02:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Even now, with an advent of all this, self-identifying atheist in a country like ours barely rises above the single digits percentage wise, and even less so in the past. The non-atheists nones on the other hand, tend to believe in a God of some sort, but just don’t identify with any particular organized religion. And even among self identifying atheists you have about 8% of them who also claim to believe in a God or a universal spirit. It seems even atheists have a hard time being atheists.

Again, I think that the rise of the "nones" has more to do with the lessening of the fear than people actually leaving the faith. I think that many of these "nones" left the faith long ago and were just afraid to do something about it because they were afraid. Also, citation please for your 8% claim. By definition, you can't be an atheist and hold to a god in any way. If you believe in a higher power, you aren't an atheist, you're a deist. That is not a NTS, just a fact. Terminology is a bitch.


(05-04-2016 02:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  None of this may add to the veracity of these beliefs, but it does point to the near universality of them, and that a lack of belief in God/s/Higher Power, are an exceedingly small minority, a population only larger now than it was in the past. The suggestion that people need to be taught, rather than intuitively given to such beliefs, or that it’s fear that keeps people from lacking a belief in God, is not a very good one.

You still seem to not understand that the universally of a claim, any claim, has absolutely nothing to do whether that claim is actually true. I also never said that people can't think up of some supernatural explanation on their own. I have said, more than once, that it is the specific god claims that need to be taught. You seem to be confounding what I said. For example, I completely believe that you, yourself, may have constructed a spirit explanation of something you didn't understand. That is a remnant of our evolution and a good survival skill. However, if left alone, there is no way you would have come up with the Jesus story or the theism that you actually believe. This also goes for any other religion that has ever been or will be. Religions are constructed (although not necessarily intentionally) to exploit the incredulity of the many minds. Again, even Pascal knew this and wrote about it as the "ones who are made not able to believe."


(05-04-2016 02:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The rise of nones seem to be more driven by their lack of dependency on organized religion, than anything else, but they don’t seem particularly prone to a lack of belief in God though. Countries where non-religiousness is fairly dominant, can blame much of that on the advent of the welfare state than anything else, rather than their own Dawkins and Harris types paving some safespace where you no longer had to fear not believing.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that some people claim that Dawkins and Harris types are responsible for the societies in places like the Netherlands? If so, who is saying this? I don't believe that for one second. Also, as I stated earlier, I think the rise of the "nones" has everything to do with the destigmatization of not holding to a deity or particular faith


(05-04-2016 02:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  But I would say one aspect that makes people not so much inclined to be atheists, it’s entirely the identifying marker here, atheism is identity for those who prefer to lack a belief, as opposed to believing something. It’s not even an alternative to theism in this regards, not even a belief that God does not exist, but a lack of belief. It seems persuasive to a crowd attracted to the idea of believing in nothing, while most of humanity seems given to believing in something. Blame it on our evolutionary tendency to draw patterns, as opposed to not doing so.

Word salad. This demonstrates that you do not understand how beliefs work. Belief is the state of being convinced of something. You can be convinced of something by bad evidence but you still believe it because you are convinced it is true. You are convinced Jesus is real. Whether that information you base that on is good or not is irrelevant here because the point is that you are convinced it is true. It is not a preference. Preference is irrelevant. Regardless whether the evidence or reasons I am convinced Jesus is NOT really a god is good or bad is not a preference. I am convinced it is nonsense. I am convinced the spiritual realm is not true. I prefer to think that Santa is real because he gives you free stuff. I prefer it, but I don't believe Santa is real because I am not convinced Santa exists.

I do agree with you that we have a tendency to draw patterns. However, the incredulous part of many of us just stop there and don't actually try to see whether that pattern is actually a real pattern or not. This incredulity is why there are people out there who legitimately believe that a talking snake coerced a rib woman to eat from a magic tree.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
08-04-2016, 01:04 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(06-04-2016 07:56 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Thanks for the citations, I'll check them out.

(05-04-2016 02:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Challenging religious claim has a long history while folks who a lacked a belief in God, were fairly non-existent for much of human history.

Do you not think that the fear of being ostracized or killed had something to do with this? Also, we do know that there were people who did challenge the establishment (i.e. Democratis, Epicurus, Socrates, etc.) back then. These are just the ones we know of. Your claim is totally unsubstantiated.


(05-04-2016 02:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  And it’s primarily in the advent of Darwinism, that an anti-religious side previously occupied by deist, were able to formulate an alternative to a teleological views.

Darwinism/evolution has nothing to do with an anti-religious movement at it's core. It is merely a means of explaining the world as we know it based on the evidence we can obtain. That's it. Now, some people may take it and use it to attack a man-made establishment like the church, but that is because evolution by natural selection provided a testable mechanism to challenge certain doctrines. Not all, just some. This however, is not the same thing as what it sounds like you are saying. Evolutionary theory just gave us a tool to test whether the claims made by the religious were true.


(05-04-2016 02:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Even now, with an advent of all this, self-identifying atheist in a country like ours barely rises above the single digits percentage wise, and even less so in the past. The non-atheists nones on the other hand, tend to believe in a God of some sort, but just don’t identify with any particular organized religion. And even among self identifying atheists you have about 8% of them who also claim to believe in a God or a universal spirit. It seems even atheists have a hard time being atheists.

Again, I think that the rise of the "nones" has more to do with the lessening of the fear than people actually leaving the faith. I think that many of these "nones" left the faith long ago and were just afraid to do something about it because they were afraid. Also, citation please for your 8% claim. By definition, you can't be an atheist and hold to a god in any way. If you believe in a higher power, you aren't an atheist, you're a deist. That is not a NTS, just a fact. Terminology is a bitch.


(05-04-2016 02:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  None of this may add to the veracity of these beliefs, but it does point to the near universality of them, and that a lack of belief in God/s/Higher Power, are an exceedingly small minority, a population only larger now than it was in the past. The suggestion that people need to be taught, rather than intuitively given to such beliefs, or that it’s fear that keeps people from lacking a belief in God, is not a very good one.

You still seem to not understand that the universally of a claim, any claim, has absolutely nothing to do whether that claim is actually true. I also never said that people can't think up of some supernatural explanation on their own. I have said, more than once, that it is the specific god claims that need to be taught. You seem to be confounding what I said. For example, I completely believe that you, yourself, may have constructed a spirit explanation of something you didn't understand. That is a remnant of our evolution and a good survival skill. However, if left alone, there is no way you would have come up with the Jesus story or the theism that you actually believe. This also goes for any other religion that has ever been or will be. Religions are constructed (although not necessarily intentionally) to exploit the incredulity of the many minds. Again, even Pascal knew this and wrote about it as the "ones who are made not able to believe."


(05-04-2016 02:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The rise of nones seem to be more driven by their lack of dependency on organized religion, than anything else, but they don’t seem particularly prone to a lack of belief in God though. Countries where non-religiousness is fairly dominant, can blame much of that on the advent of the welfare state than anything else, rather than their own Dawkins and Harris types paving some safespace where you no longer had to fear not believing.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that some people claim that Dawkins and Harris types are responsible for the societies in places like the Netherlands? If so, who is saying this? I don't believe that for one second. Also, as I stated earlier, I think the rise of the "nones" has everything to do with the destigmatization of not holding to a deity or particular faith


(05-04-2016 02:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  But I would say one aspect that makes people not so much inclined to be atheists, it’s entirely the identifying marker here, atheism is identity for those who prefer to lack a belief, as opposed to believing something. It’s not even an alternative to theism in this regards, not even a belief that God does not exist, but a lack of belief. It seems persuasive to a crowd attracted to the idea of believing in nothing, while most of humanity seems given to believing in something. Blame it on our evolutionary tendency to draw patterns, as opposed to not doing so.

Word salad. This demonstrates that you do not understand how beliefs work. Belief is the state of being convinced of something. You can be convinced of something by bad evidence but you still believe it because you are convinced it is true. You are convinced Jesus is real. Whether that information you base that on is good or not is irrelevant here because the point is that you are convinced it is true. It is not a preference. Preference is irrelevant. Regardless whether the evidence or reasons I am convinced Jesus is NOT really a god is good or bad is not a preference. I am convinced it is nonsense. I am convinced the spiritual realm is not true. I prefer to think that Santa is real because he gives you free stuff. I prefer it, but I don't believe Santa is real because I am not convinced Santa exists.

I do agree with you that we have a tendency to draw patterns. However, the incredulous part of many of us just stop there and don't actually try to see whether that pattern is actually a real pattern or not. This incredulity is why there are people out there who legitimately believe that a talking snake coerced a rib woman to eat from a magic tree.

While I agree with everything you wrote TOC, there is however a bit a grammatical error that needs addressing. Please remember the definition for incredulity, and how it differs from credulity; you appear to be mismatching them. I myself used to made this mistake a lot.


Incredulity
-The state of being unwilling or unable to believe something.

Credulity
-A tendency to be too ready to believe that something is real or true.


Credulity is to be credulous, to be gullible, to accept beliefs as true without sufficient evidence. Tomasia is credulous, you and I are incredulous. Thumbsup

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
08-04-2016, 04:12 AM
Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(05-04-2016 02:52 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(05-04-2016 02:49 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Unless you were born in a third world country, grew up in country that was not your own, grew up in a church where they didn't even speak the same language, are not white, than yes we do have some fundamental differences in our upbringing. You likely wouldn't be able to identify much with my life, anymore so than I would be with yours.
We both occupy spaces quite foreign to each other. This doesn't make my experiences anymore unique than yours, but I'm just pointing out there's likely to be some fundamental differences here.

Once again, you are rambling about something I didn't say Drinking Beverage

The irony must have been lost on you.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2016, 04:31 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(08-04-2016 04:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-04-2016 02:52 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Once again, you are rambling about something I didn't say Drinking Beverage

The irony must have been lost on you.

None of what you said has anything to do with the OP anyway.

Brussel sprouts!

There, I said it.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
08-04-2016, 06:26 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(08-04-2016 04:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-04-2016 02:52 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Once again, you are rambling about something I didn't say Drinking Beverage

The irony must have been lost on you.

And you continue to play dumb (I guess you might not be playing Consider ) as you clearly don't understand what the word "irony" means either.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
08-04-2016, 06:28 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(08-04-2016 06:26 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(08-04-2016 04:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The irony must have been lost on you.

And you continue to play dumb (I guess you might not be playing Consider ) as you clearly don't understand what the word "irony" means either.

I can help!

Google to the rescue.

irony1
ˈʌɪrəni/
noun
the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
"‘Don't go overboard with the gratitude,’ he rejoined with heavy irony"
synonyms: sarcasm, sardonicism, dryness, causticity, sharpness, acerbity, acid, bitterness, trenchancy, mordancy, cynicism; More
a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result.
plural noun: ironies
"the irony is that I thought he could help me"
synonyms: paradox, paradoxical nature, incongruity, incongruousness, peculiarity
"the irony of the situation hit her"
a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions is clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.
noun: dramatic irony; plural noun: tragic irony

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: