Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-04-2016, 07:13 AM
RE: Shortcomings of the "probability of life" argument
(08-04-2016 01:04 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(06-04-2016 07:56 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Thanks for the citations, I'll check them out.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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

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.

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

-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

You're darn right I did. Shit. Facepalm

Thanks for pointing that out.

"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
[+] 2 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: