Total posts: 511
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
No, but it's your fault you lie about atheists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If you don't like getting lied about don't post.
Corrected for accuracy.
Created:
-->
@Christen
They do it because it's a contest. Cheering a good part of a performance is like cheering a 3-pointer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Congratulations on your superpower.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If something exists, it must exist in truth.
Insofar as truth means "in accordance with reality", sure. If something exists, it must be in accordance with reality.
Or, the truth in it gives it its existence.
What do you mean by "gives"? And how is this any different than saying that its existence gives it truth?
The fact that something is in accordance with reality is just another way of saying that it exists.
If something is true, The Truth in it makes it true.
This is just a tautology. If something exists, its Existence is what makes it exist. If something is round, its Roundness is what makes it round. If something has three legs, its three-leggedness is what makes it have three legs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Sure, one definition of truth is "in accordance with reality".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
There is so much to critical thinking that I could hardly do it justice in a single post. I will defer to this webpage.
I already said what I mean by humans being capable of making objective judgments. I mean they can reach the same conclusion that would be reached by someone who was truly objective.
How do you quantify the gap between a sort-of-objective statement and a "truly objective" statement?
I don't. I know of no way to quantify difference in meaning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Your reply in no way addressed the question of how the Trinity, the incarnation or salvation follows from the mere fact that reality exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Nothing of what you say about a Trinity or an incarnation or salvation follows from the mere fact that reality exists. Yet your conception of God entails these things. Therefore you ascribe much more to God than just Ultimate Reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
There are a number of problems with eugenics. One is this: who gets to decide? If you have standards that are applied to everyone, who makes the standards?
Another problem is, where does it stop? Do we keep breeding better and better people, until we end up with something that is no long even recognizably human?
I also have to ask, would your support for it be the same if you were one of those deemed unfit to reproduce?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The FatherThe SonThe Holy SpiritThese are the three hypostases of The Trinity. They are of one essence and undivided. The Father is God, The Son is God, The Holy Spirit is God.God is manifested in creation through The Holy Spirit and The Son.The Son is The Word of God. The Holy Spirit is like the breath that carries that word. The Word of God is Truth. All of creation was created by and through The Word, as nothing can exist unless Truth is in it.The hypostasis or person of The Son is the unity of two natures. Fully man and fully divine. This is the unifying of all creation with divine.The incarnation is God becoming man. By God becoming creation, all of the universe is deified with him. Becoming death, God descends to the lowest hades and rises back up, filling all things, drawing all of creation back to Him.And so God is with us. God did not speak creation into being and then back off. All of creation is filled by God, enlivened by The Holy Spirit and united in the fleshly nature of the second hypostasis.And being united with God, all of creation, though dying, is saved and given eternal life in Christ Jesus. Through His resurrection, Christ has conquered death by death, bestowing life to those in the tombs.Jesus Christ is the persistent reality, The eternal Word of God. And through His incarnation, He is The Most Perfect Image of God The Father as revealed by the life giving and consubstantial Holy Spirit.It is God's presence in creation that gives it its existence. God is with us.
I must point out that you have repeated over and over ad nauseam that all you mean by God is Ultimate Reality. Yet here we see that you really mean a bunch of other stuff when you say God. It comes across as quite disingenuous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you think that clear standards of evidence and skepticism are prerequisite to what you call critical thinking?
I wouldn't call them prerequisites. Components, rather.
Also, do you really believe that humans can make "objective judgments"?
Yes.
I don't mean to suggest that people are able to be truly objective. But, by applying logic and reason, one can make the same judgement that would be made if one were truly objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
The claim should be evaluated on its own merits. That's the most rational approach.
A notorious con-man offers to sell you a Rolex watch for cheap. You have taken the last ten Rolex watches he has offered to a jeweler to examine, and they were all fake. Is it reasonable to spend time on another trip to the jeweler to evaluate the current watch?
The boy who cried wolf makes the point that evaluating history and sources is often useful when considering claims.
Is the claim "a prime, eternal consciousness and creator of the universe exists" fantastical?
Yes, of course.
For existential claims, non-belief is for all practical purposes identical to disbelief. If I lack belief in something, I act as though it does not exist.
It is not true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It may not be conclusive evidence of absence, but it is evidence of absence, especially if something ought to have left evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Are you really contending that one should not evaluate the source when considering whether to believe a claim?
Fallacies are concerned with whether an argument logically supports an implication. I'm not saying that the fact that the boy is known to falsely cry wolf logically implies that there is no wolf. I'm saying that the fact that the boy is known to falsely cry wolf makes it less likely that the boy's next wolf-cry will be true. It's a subtle distinction.
Yes, the big bang singularity is a fantastical claim. If there were no evidence for it, it should be disbelieved. There is, however, evidence for it. In fact, unlike many other fantastical claims, evidence is what led to the big bang in the first place. That is an important distinction.
I disagree in regards to verifiability. Verifiability and rational belief go hand in hand. The more difficult something is to verify, the less inclined we should be to believe it, especially with respect to claims of existence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I don't think the number of false claims on a particular subject is indicative of whether a particular claim on that subject is true or false. That's a variation of the genetic fallacy.
Not at all. It is common sense, encapsulated in the story of the boy who cried wolf. Yes, I know the last time the boy cried wolf there actually was a wolf. But it was still reasonable for the villagers to disbelieve the claim based on the boy's history of false claims.
What makes a claim "fantastical"?
For a working definition we can go with the following: a claim is fantastical if nothing else like it is known to have ever existed or if it requires new physical laws.
What's interesting is that the example of the 10ft tall gold statue of Zeus is more likely false than true, yet your view is that this negative claim should be harder to justify than the positive claim.
Not harder to justify--harder to verify. Justifying belief in the absence of any such statue is straightforward. If no such statue has been observed or reported, that, along with knowing the difficulty of constructing such a statue and the rarity of gold, are enough justification for disbelief. Presumably this is how you determined it to be more likely false then true.
Verifying, however, is much harder for negative existential claims. That is why disbelief of positive claims should be the default position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Even when you limit it to only theistic claims that are actually asserted, there are far more false claims than true ones. Therefore when presented with a novel theistic claim, in the absence of evidence, disbelief is the reasonable default position. Especially when one considers the fantastical nature of many such claims. As a general rule, the more fantastic the claim, the more one ought to disbelieve it until provided evidence.
How can you say that it is not inherently more difficult to provide evidence of non-existence? If I claim that there is a ten-foot-tall gold statue of Zeus lying at the bottom of the sea, and there really is one, then all I have to do to conclusively demonstrate its existence is to show it to you. You might even accept a written record of a ship that sank with such a statue on board as sufficient evidence. But if I claim there is no such statue, and there really is not one, how do I conclusively demonstrate that? A lack of any record of such a statue is insufficient. Records can be lost. I need to show that, out of every square meter of the sea floor, none has such a statue. It should be obvious which is more difficult.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I agree with your first sentence but disagree with your second sentence. If you claim X does not exist, all you have to do is show evidence that X does not exist.
Yes, and it is much more difficult to show evidence that something that truly does not exist does not than to show that something that truly exists does. This is especially true with theistic claims, many of which are mutually exclusive.Therefore the burden of proof is not equal.
In addition, when you consider all possible claims, most are false. Another reason for disbelief to be the default position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Yes, lacking belief encompasses multiple positions. But in and of itself a lack of belief does not require a burden of proof. If the atheist is not asserting that the theistic claim is untrue, only that it lacks evidence, then there is no burden of proof.
I'll add that your contention that any assertion requires the same burden of proof as its negation is not always true. Claims that something exists are a good example. Disbelief should be the default position for any such claim. That is because there is an inherent asymmetry between the proof required to verify something exists and the proof required to verify it does not exist. If I claim X exists, all I have to do is show you X, or evidence of X. But if I claim X does not exist, I have to show you that in the entire universe nowhere is there an X.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
If you define atheism as "the belief that no gods exist" then atheists would have a burden of proof.
If you define atheism as "a lack of belief in any gods" then atheists have no burden of proof.
Most theists attempt to define atheism using the first definition. Most self-described atheists, however, use the second definition.
The difference between the two definitions is that the first one makes an assertion, and the second one doesn't. The first definition asserts that all theistic claims are untrue. The second definition only says that there is insufficient evidence to accept theistic claims. It does not assert that theistic claims are untrue.
Created:
Posted in:
The FDA has just approved a gene-editing drug that will be the world's most expensive drug at 2.1 million dollars per treatment. It treats SMA, an inherited disease that cause progressive loss of muscle function.
Novartis, the company who makes it, will let insurance companies pay for it over five years, and will offer partial rebates if it is not effective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I guess you don't know of any dictionary definition of atheism.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary: "a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism)
Oxford English Dictionary: "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
CRISPR is the most promising enzyme for gene editing, but there are others.
Yes, it's nearly at the point of feasibility now, which is why the scientists are calling for a moratorium until the ethics are worked out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The problem might be defining 'markedly lower'.
Yes, and also "quality of life".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
When you say that everything besides defects that markedly lower the quality of life should be strictly regulated, how do you mean. Do you mean a complete ban, or should some be allowed? For instance, let's start with an easy one. Should parents be able to choose their child's eye color?
Created:
Posted in:
"A prominent group of 18 scientists and bioethicists from seven countries has called for a global “moratorium” on introducing heritable changes into human sperm, eggs, or embryos—germline editing—to make genetically altered children."
On the one hand, gene editing can fix birth defects such as cystic fibrosis, sickle cell disease, and heart defects.
On the other hand, do we want a world where parents can choose the eye color, height, weight, intelligence and other genetic traits of their child? At the extreme, there is the potential to edit an embryo to have six fingers and toes, or a tail, or even so much that the result would barely be considered human. Where do we draw the line?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Deficit spending is where government spends more money than it receives. It's why the U.S. currently has a 22 trillion dollar debt.
If I were a politician paid based on the average income of the population, I would have incentive to make the government spend more to raise people's incomes. Heck, all it would take is to triple the pay of government employees.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
If I were a politician who got paid based on the income of constituents, what is to prevent me from deficit-spending for government jobs that don't contribute anything to society?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
If you posit that deterministic, mindless forces control all actions, then our beliefs cannot be rationally chosen.
Strike the word "chosen" from this sentence, and it falls apart.
Beliefs can still be rational (and irrational) whether or not we actually choose them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Atheism is not nihilism.
Why should anyone take you seriously, when they know they don't believe what you say they believe?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
You figure wrong.
People often ascribe bad motives to those they disagree with because it helps justify your own beliefs, but it's intellectually lazy. It's much easier to say someone just wants to misbehave than to try to truly understand them.
Most atheists don't believe in God because they find there is insufficient evidence to do so. It's that simple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
it was not a single monkey that evovled but an entire group of them??? am i getting that right.
It was a population, a group whose membership is constantly dying and being replenished by offspring.
there should be a couple thousand examples of fossils and or bones of the different stages of that one animal.
There are millions of such examples of such transitional animals. Here is a partial list, including transitional forms of humans:
a mutation like a monkey turning into an human is impossible.
Monkey to human is not the result of a single mutation. It is the result of millions of mutations accumulated over many, many generations.
plus those are good mutations and from what i have seen the only mutations that generally happen are bad???
Most mutations are neutral, meaning they have no affect on survival or ability to produce offspring. Most of the remaining ones are bad, and a few are good.
Now look at what happens when a mutation is bad. A bad mutation, by definition, means the organism is less likely to survive, and thus less likely to produce offspring. Fewer offspring means that fewer individuals in the population carry the bad mutation. Over generations, the bad mutation becomes less and less frequent in the population, because those without it produce more offspring than those with it.
Conversely, a good mutation, by definition, means the organism is more likely to produce offspring, passing on the mutation. More offspring means that the frequency of the good mutation in the population increases over successive generations.
In short, good mutations tend to be reinforced over time while bad mutations tend to be weeded out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
stronnok so your saying that a species of an animal evolved so not just one monkey evolved into humans but a group of them did.so it was no one monkey who evolved into humans but a group of monkey that evolved into humanswhat are the chances that lets say 10 monkeys evovle into the same creature aka a human.
You are still thinking as if individuals evolve. They do not. Populations evolve. It works like this. Say I have a population of monkeys. They mate, and have offspring. The offspring are slightly different than the parents. The population of monkeys now consists of the parents and their offspring, and because offspring are slightly different than their parents, the population as a whole is now slightly different. Now, guess what the offspring do? That's right, they mate and make more offspring, which again are slightly different than their parents. The changes accumulate over many generations of offspring, until thousands of generations later the population is so different it is no longer the same species. That is evolution.
All this time, each generation is interbreeding to produce the next generation's offspring, which is why the differences (mutations) spread through a population.
the preacher who is on the radio.i listen to chuck swindol talks about how evolution is impossible because the body dna repair system trys to prevent mutations
I suggest you consider whether a radio preacher is the best source of information about science.
DNA has a a repairing system that helps prevent mutations so change like evolution described would be impossible. http://pediaa.com/how-does-dna-polymerase-prevent-mutations/this is this guy who came up with the evolution is impossible because of the dna repair system trying to prevent mutation talking pointso it would be impossible for animals or humans to change over time like Charles Darwin described.
Did you actually read that first article? The first thing it does is list the types of mutations that actually do occur. The "mutation prevention" it describes only happens during the DNA replication process. If a mutation is already present, it will be faithfully copied during this process.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Individual animals don't evolve, populations do.
That is just one of your fundamental misunderstandings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Because the OP probably rejects evolution for religious reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Herdity of traitsVariation of traits between generationsThe statistical link of traits to survival
More accurately, the statistical link of traits to offspring production. It's a subtle difference.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Actually, there are objective standards for what constitutes a good argument. The fact that some people don't apply those standards when evaluating an argument does not make the argument arbitrary or subjective. For instance, if I call my opponent names, and my name-calling is so clever that it convinces people to disbelieve my opponent's position, I have still made a bad argument.
Just because people are persuaded a bad argument or think it is a good argument does not make it any less bad.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Actually, people are persuaded to change their mind all the time when presented with good arguments.
If you are unable to persuade anyone to adopt adopt a particular position, then its likely you are either using a bad argument or have an untenable position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Many people have very loose standards for evidence, and will believe things based on the flimsiest of evidence. Just because a belief is justified in the mind of the believer does not mean it is a reasonable belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Isn't everything ultmately the product of random quantum events?
Quantum events, yes. If we have freewill, though, then perhaps some quantum events aren't so random.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It comes down to this: we should act as if we have freewill, because we don't have any choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I'll add that, if we truly have freewill, then quantum fluctuations provide a plausible mechanism for whatever force is behind choice (call it the will) to interact with matter., inducing certain quantum events to occur in our brains. As such, it may in principle be detectable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes, blurring the line between random events and choice was my intent. It may be that what we perceive as freewill and choice is a ultimately the product of random quantum events.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
"Deterministic" is not the word I would use for what sets half-lives or other physical laws Deterministic means that, for a given set of starting conditions, future outcomes will always be the exactly the same. Even though we can predict with high accuracy how many atoms will decay in a one half-life, the exact number over that time in any one sample will vary, and will likely not be exactly one-half of the atoms. As for what sets those laws, I'm not sure that is an answerable question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
A process can be random but still be predictable. Radioactive decay events, for instance, occur at random intervals, but over time the average number of such events per atom is highly predictable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
According to quantum mechanics, unpredictability is an inherent quality of all matter. Unpredictability is also essential for freewill. Are the two connected? That is, is freewill just a manifestation of quantum fluctuations?
Because of quantum fluctuations, no two stones, even with identical starting conditions, will drop with precisely the same trajectory. One might say that the stone chooses a trajectory. It could be argued that the difference between the stone and the bird is just one of degree. The stone has far fewer possible choices.
Perhaps what we perceive as freewill is just the sum of quantum fluctuations in our brain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The refusals I've seen, the couple wanted two grooms or two brides on the cake.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm sure he meant heterosexual-themed.
Created: