Human Programming

If God appeared to someone in their mind then they might believe he exists. They would believe becuase of the evidense they saw and that evidence was not objective. It was subjective evidences. Don't extrapolate what I say to include things that I don't. I'm sayin that if God apeared to someone in their mind, then that would be evidence for that person and only that person, hence the evidence is subjective. We can avoid calling it evidence if you feel it doesn't fit your qualifications, I don't care. The point is that it is evidence to them. Because in my experience, my belief in my soul came from something other than conditioning. Well, for me there is the subjective evidence. Lets call it a 'reason' instead of SE so we can agree on our terms. So, for me there IS a reason to believe in my soul. One reason is simply that it seems to exist.When I look inside myself (metaphorically) and go "hrm, is there a soul in here?" I come up with the answer "yes". Absolutely, I don't reject that possibility. I dunno, maybe you don't have one Or maybe your interpreting the feeling as something different, or biasly ignoring it altogether (perhaps, because you think it comes from conditioning). Ah, but that is a new religion. I'm talking about the source of religion, in general. If it can only come from conditioning, then it couldn't have arrisen in the first place. There has to be some other cause which, admittedly, doesn't have to be god.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : syntax error

You’re starting to piss me off with your annoyances. Typing it again doesn’t make it true. 1) Nothing is proved (except mathematical proofs).
2) Evidence is not proof
3) I’m not Muslim because I don’t believe Muhammad. Yes, I would consider God’s appearance to Muhammad as subjective evidence but that doesn’t mean I have to accept the evidence
4) You did not show me how subjective evidence makes no sense. Here’s some quotes from your link to the definition of evidence, bold added for emphasis.

quote:

---

Evidence in its broadest sense, refers to anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion

---

If I assert that God exists and use a subjective feeling to determine that truth for myself and only myself then that feeling is evidence for me, by (your) definition. It doesn’t have to prove anything to be considered evidence and it only has to be objective if you want it to be evidence for someone other than me.

quote:

---

Philosophically, evidence can include propositions which are presumed to be true used in support of other propositions that are presumed to be falsifiable.

---

So the evidence doesn’t have to be proven, it can be presumed to be true and still be evidence.

quote:

---

The term has specialized meanings when used with respect to specific fields, such as scientific research, criminal investigations, and legal discourse.

---

You are using a specialized meaning of the word evidence and applying it outside of its respective field. I have no scientific evidence for the existence of my soul. But I do have something that I’ve used to determine that I do have a soul and, by definition, it can be considered evidence since anything that is used to determine the truth of an assertion is evidence.

quote:

---

The most immediate form of evidence available to an individual is the observations of that person's own senses.

---

Our senses are subjective and they are the most immediate forms of evidence.

quote:

---

Even simple sensory perceptions (qualia) ultimately are subjective; guaranteeing that the same information can be considered somehow true in an objective sense is the main challenge of establishing standards of evidence.

---

So not only can evidence be subjective, in a sense, all evidence is subjective.Do you now understand how evidence can be subjective or are you too stubborn to admit that you were wrong? Scientifical thanks for that one, that was funnyBut seriously, I don’t accept said reason for believing in my soul as scientific evidence. That’s why I use the term ”subjective evidence’, so that it is differentiated from everyday run-of-the-mill evidence. Your arguing that my subjective evidence is not scientific (or whatever criteria you’re using) evidence so then it is evidence at all. Right, but the earth seeming to be stationary IS evidence that it is stationary, by the definition of evidence. Just because there is evidence of something doesn’t mean that it is true. There is evidence of thing that are false, but it is still evidence nonetheless. That is soo annoying You didn’t even come close to following my train of thought.

Initially you were saying that my subjective evidence is not evidence at all. Now you are saying that it is not scientifical evidence. Well I agree that it is not scientific evidence. That is not true (I’d agree it’s the best way though). And that’s one of the reasons I can rely on my subjective evidence to come to a conclusion. I tend to agree but one exception is using a witness as evidence in a court case. A verdict could be based on that personal evidence. That’s one of those annoying things you do. If I take the position that something can be based on personal evidence it doesn’t me I am saying that everything can be based on personal evidence. Thinking up a ridiculous example of basing something on personal evidence does not mean that nothing can be based on it. Let alone that I never even said that any personal evidence is enough to believe something.Also, if I look up at the sky and it looks red, then that IS evidence to believe that it is red. One persons eyesight is not scientific evidence for determining the color of the sky but it IS evidence, for that person that science might be wrong about the color of the sky. That individuals critical thinking comes into play in determining if what they are witnessing if wrong or not. What we cannot say, though, is that the person’s vision of a red sky is not evidence at all. Sure its evidence, its just not scientific or objective evidence. I’ll call it subjective evidence. For sure we can base a conclusion for ourselves with subjective evidence. I conclude that Muhammad was wrong.I also conclude that I have a soul and that God exists with subjective evidence that was not received from conditioning. This is why I am arguing against your claim that all religious belief comes from conditioning. Now, I realize that you are backing away from this claim and changing it to most religious belief is conditioning, but if that was your original claim then we wouldn’t be arguing, because I would have agreed with you. You have also made some sorta claim that belief in the bible comes from conditioning but I haven’t really touched that one.I contend, the I, myself, am an example of a person who believes in a religion, not because of conditioning, but because I have come to that conclusion with subjective evidence. That is why I think your claim that all religious belief comes from conditioning is wrong. I also think that jar is another example that disproves your theory. If you want to change that all to a most then I won’t argue with you. (well maybe on how were gonna decide which people are conditioned and which ones aren’t so that we can determine which one there are more of.) But I’m not talking about a specific religious belief. I’m talking wholly about religion, in general. If it can only come from condition then it could not emerge. There has to have been some cause other than conditioning for religion to have emerged. If they are only conditioned the you’re wrong. If it was soley from conditioning, then how could someone like Tom Cruise, who converted to scientology late in his lifetime be conditioned to believe it? Here I’m thinking of condition in the typical sense of religious conditioning where as you are raised as a child to believe something and that’s why you believe it. This is how conditioning has been used in this thread. Certainly you could argue that Tom Cruise was brainwashed, a form a conditioning, to believe in scientology, but that would fuck up the analogy. The point is, Tom Cruise probably was shown some kind of evidence (no matter how ridiculous it was) that scientology is true, before he decided to become a scientologist. I doubt that he was simply brainwashed.But anyways, for the purpose of discussion I will agree that all scientologists are conditioned. But that is not my train of thought (annoying). Even if scientology was a result of conditioning alone, that doesn’t mean it couldn’t have emerged because religions have existed before it emerged. If they are a product of conditioning, then they scientologist conditioners would be able to use previous religion’s techniques to condition people to a different religion.My point was that if that is the only way that religious beliefs can be formed, then the first religion could never have emerged because it wouldn’t have been able to be conditioned. It would have been something entirely new. That’s why there has to exist some other cause for religion, as a whole, to emerge in the distant past. It says nothing about new religions emerging today.

Yes, well sorta.I struck the part that makes it too absolute of a claim. So where are you going with this?Actually, let me just rewrite it.I believe in God because of evidence for my mind.
These evidences are not scientifically valid.
I conclude with the non-scientific evidence that I've gathered that God does exist.I pretty much typed that a long time ago in this thread. I just used the word "subjective" to replace "non-scientitic" when describing the evidence.Now what?

---

From Message 170Receiving my scientific education is what led me to loose my belief in god. But, more understanding of the world around me after that education is what led me back to believing in god. My claim is that I wiped the slate clean with the acquisition of scientific knowledge and then found God within myself. Now, I was aware of the concept of god before I found him, and I can see your point that the concept must be there to find him, but if that were true then humans would have never found him in the first place, before the first god was ”invented’. Unless it’s all a big conspiracy or a scam, which I can see how modern religion can be viewed that way. But primitive man found god with no conditioning.

---

From Message 174Faith. You’re not supposed to have proof of god’s existence, as that would undermine faith.I agree with you that scientific evidence is the best evidence we have, but you seemto assume that if science can’t discover something then it cannot exist. Science is limited in what it can discover. If you only believe in what science says then aren’t you kinda turning science into your religion? And if so, and by your own argument, aren’t you only believing in science because you were conditioned to do so?

---

From Message 176
Maybe there are other options that you have failed to see or are refusing to see, no?Another option is the example of myself that I am trying to show you. That one can believe in god from non-scientific evidence that they have for themselves that doesn’t have to come from conditioning.I think one of the problems, for you, is your misunderstanding of people’s actual Christian beliefs. You’ve put us all in this tiny box and say that we have all been conditioned to think that way. But we don’t all fit in that little box and we don’t all think that way. There is variety of beliefs even in the same parish, or in the same family. I can understand why you think the way you do, the problem is that your wrong about the Christians. We’re not all robots that are blindly believing what we’ve been conditioned to believe.

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"

A Bachelor of Science degree (in an engineering discipline from a prestigious university) Well, when you say things like:

quote:

---

My choice is isimply to stick to facts. Scientifical facts.

---

you seem to reject everything non-scientific. Now, I realize the claim that it cannot be true is a little too absolute to be true, but you certainly seem to think that if science can’t discover it then it does not exist. I would say that a simple belief in God is lesser than the Bible's msg is true and should/must be followed. And I don’t claim to know that there is a God, I just believe that he exists. I don’t think I’ve ever claimed that the Bible’s message is true and should/must be followed. If science was wrong about something would you still believe in the other parts?I don’t think that every part of the Bible is literally true. Some of it is obviously not true. Some of it, though, is just history. There’s a part that list a genealogy. That part could very well be the actual genealogy, and be true, while the other parts are false. I don’t see why one, or more, false parts of the Bible invalidates the whole thing. Especially when the Bible is a collection of multiple independent books. Now that is ridiculous. Obviously, man was not formed out of clay. Ever heard of parables? They aren’t literally true, they just exemplify a lesson. Its ridiculous because that Bible is not a science textbook. It is collection of books from, like, 2000 years ago. How could you expect it to stand up to the scrutiny of science? And just because it can’t, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t contain some truths.I still can’t get over that word scientifical, I’ve never seen it before you wrote it and it looks and sounds really funny to me. Why not just scientific? Sure, the Bible is wrong about some things (especially when read literally). There’s no reason to be insulting. So you assert my belief is ridiculous, and your reason is that science cannot prove it. Do you even realize that science is limited to that which exists physically, and that if the soul exists on a metaphysical level then science would be unable to prove it? To call the belief in the soul ridiculous for scientific reasons is ridiculous in itself. Are you saying that I’m not a part of the real world?Do you realize that the majority of the people on this planet believe in some kind of god and that they believe it without evidence and without testing it? I’m pretty sure that they are all in the real world. The real world doesn't really operate like you think it does.Now, you can certainly say that they are condition to believe, and I can agree that a lot of them probably are. But what you cannot say is that they are ALL conditioned, that the only way to believe in god is conditioning, or that I cannot possibly be not-conditioned. No, you are wrong. I don’t disregard any scientific evidence to maintain my beliefs. Yes, and further, if I came to my on conclusion that the soul exists from my own personal experiences and then rejected those experiences because science failed to support them, then I would call that being programmed. Of course. So you assert again that I am conditioned without explaining how, or showing proof that I am. Apology accepted. But I am different from them. I don’t reject blatant facts to maintain my beliefs. There is nothing you said that makes me think that I WAS conditioned. You simply stated that I was and that I couldn’t not be. No, I lost my faith that god even existed. Well, there’s other reasons on top of those. Not exactly, there was more to it. That is the simplified version though. I wouldn’t say that there was NO conditioning, just that the conditioning was NOT the reason I found faith. Are you going to insult my beliefs again if I share them with you?You’re kinda hard to communicate with. You misrepresent my position, just a little, are insulting, and have horrible spelling. Its not that big of a deal but you could be a little nicer about it. And use a spell checker.And when I say that I believe in God, don’t change that to me believing in a literal interpretation of the whole bible.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : grammerEdited by Catholic Scientist, : missed one

And the God of the Gaps keeps getting pushed back farther and farther. I understand your position, I just don’t take it. That’s contradictory to a statement you make later: Some of the truths can be based on scientific facts, but this doesn’t mean that it makes the whole thing true, just like some of the (claimed) truths being scientific falsehoods doesn’t make the whole thing false. You shouldn’t let your incredulity dictate what you believe. Maybe they want to believe it and have found ways to remove the overwhelming-ness out of the facts. Oh, for sure I am. Young Earth Creationism is retarded. How’s that for insulting? But its not just because I think I am right. I’m saying that I can tell that I have a soul, or at least I think that I can tell. Whatever, but again I don’t believe because a book says to. What’s your first language? Oh, I don’t really think I’m being very logical about it. Weak Atheism or Agnosticism are probably the most logical conclusion. But I feel like I have a soul, so ”m not going to let logic get in the way of truth Because some of Jesus’ teachings contradict that interpretation so we can rule it out. (and I don’t feel like digging through the bible to find a references, so either take my word for it or don’t.) But we can eliminate many possibilities. Also, sometimes, I turn to the Argument from Authority (which I realize is a logical fallacy) for comfort. I mean, there been a lot of very intelligent people in the past who have considered many possible interpretations. If they have concluded that certain interpretations don’t fit, then I can trust their judgement if I deem them worthy. Of course it doesn’t prove it impossible, but that is not really that important in my opinion. I don’t really have subjective evidence that Jesus was divine. It probably has a lot to do with conditioning, I’ll admit. I believe the subjective evidence allows me to conclude that God does exist. Now, as far as which religion is the most accurate, that comes down to studying them and finding it out for yourself. I like Jesus’ teachings and after reading them am convinced that he was God. Muhammad doesn’t convince me. Could that be strictly from conditioning? Yes. But I feel that I’ve reviewed the documents critically enough to come to my own conclusion so I don’t think that it is only conditioning. There are other factors. Yes, even you and your faith in science. All evidence is, ultimately, subjective as we can only receive it for ourselves. Perhaps you have been conditioned to only trust science, no? Because I was educated and do not just accept everything I was told. When I challenged the condition, through my education, I realized that, as Bill Hicks said:

quote:

---

Everything I had learned was, in fact, learned and not necessarily true.

---

It was only after I went back, and reviewed what Jesus had taught us about god and himself that I concluded that I believed he was telling the truth and was convinced that he was god. Yeah, I can think of lots of ways to condition people too. I don’t really remember my point in that. Yeah, and then actually convincing someone with that proof might even be harder Yes and it is dishonest. Retarding even. Honestly, it wasn’t that shocking. Hardly even noticeable. Especially compared to getting it back, which was like a realization. You know when you think very strongly that your right about something and cannot admit that you are wrong, and the you find out one small thing that you were overlooking and you go “Ohhhhh!” and you have a big realization that you were totally wrong. It was kinda like that. It was pretty weird. Some people like to compare it to a re-birth or the Holy Spirit entering them or something like that. And, while I don’t deny those as possibilities, to me, it sorta just seemed like any other realization that I had. But when I lost my faith there was no realization, really. It kinda just slowly drifted away the more I learned about the truths in this reality. What I realized, was that even though everything I learned was true, I wasn’t necessarily learning everything that was true. When I started learning other (presumed) truths, that were previously untouchable, I really felt like I was learning a lot. I believe you. When we first started, your English skills made me think that you were young, not that English wasn’t your first language. Can you see how calling someone’s beliefs ridiculous could be taken as insulting? Its not really going to make me mad or anything, but it is unnecessary. And I think they are getting longer. I don't mind if you don't.

In order to be considered factual, sure, but people can believe whatever they want. Yes, and by being wary we can combat the conditioning that we have received. What’s your point? So you should be wary of you beliefs in your opinion. I agree. I don’t just believe everything I’m told. I know, I’ve said that. There is conditioning there, I have agreed. But what I won’t agree to is that it is only from conditioning. There are other factors involved, that lead to me belief in Christianity, that are not from condition as I have been trying to explain. I don’t agree.Assume God does exist. Now, let’s say that we logically conclude that he does not exist. Our logic would not dictate the existence of God. Would logically concluding god does not exist negate his existence? If he exists, he does so independent of our logic. Or do you think that if God exists then we would not be able to logically conclude that he doesn’t? In that case, truth would dictate logic, and in the previous case logic plainly does not dictate the truth. I don’t know yet if I agree with this.Certainly an argument can be sound(true) but not logical and logical but not sound, no? That’s an absolute assertion and I won’t agree to it. We only need ONE example of a person believing in a religion illogically to prove this wrong, and as it is it is unsubstantiated. There is? If logic dictates truth as you claim above, then how can knowledge have any affect on logic? Are you just making this stuff up? There are many religions that question a lot of things? What are talking about? Sure, science is much better at finding truth than religion. But it is limited in what it can detect and what it considers evidence. There could be truth that science is totally blind to and it would never know. You mean on average? Or the top ten most intelligent people? I agree with the former but not the latter. My claim is that I can critically add weight to the right side outside of my conditioning. I also contend that a person with critical thinking CAN believe in a religion. For you to assert that they cannot is ridiculous. If I was conditioned to believe in Muhammad, then I would find his teaching more acceptable. So what? That doesn’t really do anything for the argument that the only way I could believe in a religion is through conditioning. I’m not saying conditioning doesn’t help, I’m saying it isn’t the only way. Have I claimed otherwise? False. My beliefs are not driven though ignorance. I have made it a point that they are not driven by ignorance. More false unsubstantiated assertions (annoying).

I think that part of it probably is, yes. I already have. Weighing the evidence that I have personally gathered subjectively. Critically examining conditioned beliefs. Comparing to other religions, etc. True.

I think that part of it probably is, yes. I already have. Weighing the evidence that I have personally gathered subjectively. Critically examining conditioned beliefs. Comparing to other religions, etc. True. Didn't jar say that his religion does? If we could consider Skepticism a religion then that might be one. I don't know enough about every religion to come up with one off the top of my head but I don't think you can make the claim that not a single one does. Esecialy when someone could just make up their own religion. The point was that logic doesn't dictate truth. An argument can be logically sound and still be false. I think we are talking about different meanings for logic. You're talking about peoples own personal logic, I'm talking about the philosophy that deals with arguments. Again, an argument can be true but still be illogical. Oh I agree that it seems that people are conditioned and even that most of them are, in fact, conditioned. This hardly means that everyone (who believes a religion) is conditioned. I'm sure there are plenty of scientists who have converted to Christianity. Well, I disagree. I found that the faith was not a fraud. Well, if we take clay to mean earth, in general. We are made up of atoms and those atoms came from the earth so its not that hard to say that we are made of the earth. When this was explained in Biblical times, those people didn't know what atoms were so the term dirt, or clay, possibly meaning the earth was used. Its unnecessary to assume that it means that we are literally made of clay. No, I CAN understand why you would say that believing in Jesus being divine could be so illogical. How can God be god AND man. It hardly makes sense, especially if someone believes in a non-omnipotent god, or lacks a belief in god altogether. False again with yet another absolute unsubstantiated annoying assertion. If you threw the coin so hard that it exited the Earth's gravitational pull then, logically, it would not come back down.

sorry, I don't know why a partial post was submitted, please reply to the previous oneAdded by edit (ABE): I can added the stuff from your reply to the partial post into your reply to the full post after you post it.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

No, not really. It would only be evidence for either the soul or the belief in god and it would all be subjective. Still though, I don’t really care to get into it. I think the only illogical assumption that I make is that God is omnipotent. Because you’re misinformed and misunderstood it. Hydrogen and Oxygen are elements that are found in dirt and the earth. The atoms that you are made of were once bound to substances that comprised the earth, ie the came from the earth. So, re-evaluate my interpretation with this new information. I think the sky is blue.
The sky and the grass are not the same color. (P!=Q)
The grass is not blue. (!P)
Therefore, the sky is blue. (-> Q)That argument is illogical but the conclusion that the sky is blue is true.{ABE}If logic dicated truth, wouldn't this dictate that the sky is not blue?Also, I though of a better, more clear, example.1) If it is raining then it is wet outside. (If P then Q)
2) It is wet outside. (Q)
C) Therefore it is raining. (--> P)Now, here in St. Louis, Missouri, USA. It is raining, that is the truth. However my reasoning for concluding that it is raining is illogical. Can you see how logic does not dictate truth?{/ABE} If it is attached to a rocket It doesn’t really matter though. I was just being pedantic to exemplify the problem with the absolute statements that you tend to make. I don’t think you are trying to be annoying. Its just that you jump around and misrepresent what I’ve said and reply with thing that are not really applicable, etc. Don’t worry about it though, I’m enjoying our discussion.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

We’ve already covered this, I already agreed and said the same. That was the point, that my argument was not logical, it was true however. Logic does not dictate truth. That’s a false premise. Woopty-freakin-do. You totally missed the point. You just HAD to throw that in there, huh?

Maybe you should read the wiki article on truth.