Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Just a question...
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 7 of 199 (428546)
10-16-2007 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DiscipleFire
10-16-2007 5:59 PM


I see very little support from any mods for topics supporting creationism.
Surely you're mistaken. Nearly every topic proposed by even the barely-literate creationists is approved, no matter how counterfactual it is, how unclear, how loaded with ad-hominem, or possess of any one of a dozen more characteristics that are supposedly discouraged at this forum. The creationists can literally get away with nearly any topic that they choose no matter how poorly-framed.
Claiming evolutionary beliefs as scientific is one example.
Evolution is claimed to be scientific because it is scientific. It's a scientific model devised to explain the history and diversity of life on Earth by means of random mutation and natural selection, and its supported by the vast weight of scientific evidence, in precisely all the ways that creationism is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DiscipleFire, posted 10-16-2007 5:59 PM DiscipleFire has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 9 of 199 (428548)
10-16-2007 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by DiscipleFire
10-16-2007 6:26 PM


And your saying that believing the God created the world and gives you the hope and joy of experiencing an eternal existence is any harder to believe than we all evolved from from inorganic (as in not living) soup which exploded from nothing and all we have to look forward is to dying and being reprocessed back into the earth. =
Yes, it is much harder, because there is no evidence for the former but much for the latter.
Well, let me take that back. If you have no particular desire to believe what is true, but rather what makes you feel better, then yes it's a lot easier to believe in that load of God-bother you just said as opposed to what the physical evidence seems to indicate.
On the other hand if you're more interested in being right than in being comforted, the exact reverse is true, and it's nearly impossible to believe in the existence of God because there's absolutely no evidence that there is one and much evidence that there is not.
There are just as many problems with the evolution theory as there are with the creation theory.
That is completely false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by DiscipleFire, posted 10-16-2007 6:26 PM DiscipleFire has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 11 of 199 (428550)
10-16-2007 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by DiscipleFire
10-16-2007 6:31 PM


Until you can explain nothingness that the Big Bang started from...
What? How does that even make sense? You want an explanation for how there could be nothingness? Wouldn't nothingness be the default state? Isn't it everything but nothingness that needs an explanation for how it came to be?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by DiscipleFire, posted 10-16-2007 6:31 PM DiscipleFire has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 42 of 199 (429190)
10-18-2007 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Hyroglyphx
10-18-2007 5:38 PM


Re: The pile-on
What you are experiencing is known as the atheist pile-on...
So what are we supposed to do? Let you make arguments and not refute them? Turn this place into an echo chamber for creationists to tell each other how smart they are?
Take turns? Buy tickets? When the things you say are so damn dumb, NJ, how do you propose to limit the amount of response you get, exactly?
Nobody's twisting anybody's arm to be here, or to post here. Any time you feel like you're being unfairly picked on you can bounce right on up out of here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-18-2007 5:38 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-18-2007 9:11 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 49 of 199 (429262)
10-18-2007 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
10-18-2007 9:11 PM


Re: The pile-on
I then noticed about 10 people responding to his posts, which is a very typical occurrence at EvC for anyone espousing Christian, conservative, or creationist views.
As well as atheist views, at which point it's the Christians who pounce to inform us all how we're "fundamentalist atheists" or some such nonsense.
Pile-ons happen when people say contentious things to which people already have responses. The low-hanging fruit gets picked clean. It has nothing to do with who's an atheist or who isn't; of course you, in your short-sightedness and bias, only notice it when it happens to Christians. Thus, you think it's all a great conspiracy to refute your arguments.
My suggestion to you and the other religionists is that if you don't want the pile-ons, make arguments that we haven't already heard a thousand times. Make arguments that are hard to refute - preferably because they're factually and logically correct - and you'll find that a lot of people will choose other battles, leave the work to a few, rather than pile it on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-18-2007 9:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 139 of 199 (430249)
10-24-2007 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by itrownot
10-23-2007 11:09 PM


Re: Confirmation Bias
you had been prompted (say, by a "still, small voice") to answer the question, "What is your favorite portrait?" and you had answered unequivocally, "the Mona Lisa...THAT is my favorite portrait!"
That only makes it more likely that you would see that painting in an arrangement of random brushstrokes.
How many people will say they like the Mona Lisa best, anyway? You've pretty much got to have a better-than-average knowledge of art history to even be able to name any painting besides the Mona Lisa.
Your "evidence", just like all putative "evidence" for supernatural powers and divine presences, completely evaporates under scrutiny. And we're not even talking about your real evidence, right? These are just made-up scenarios, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by itrownot, posted 10-23-2007 11:09 PM itrownot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by itrownot, posted 10-24-2007 2:34 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 151 of 199 (430309)
10-24-2007 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by itrownot
10-24-2007 2:34 AM


Re: Confirmation Bias
Are you suggesting that I MUST be hallucinating?
I'm suggesting that the easiest person to fool is always yourself. Look, we know that's a fact from psychology. Look at these sets of lines:
Now, if you were asked to compare the length of the first one to the other three, and decide which of the three were most equal to the first, can you imagine any situation under which you might honestly answer "A" instead of "C"? I mean, A is visibly shorter, is it not?
Yet, in the Asch conformity experiment, fully 36% of the subjects did exactly that - answered that A was the closer match - when they were surrounded by confederates (research assistants whose collaboration with the researchers is unknown to the subject) who all answered A.
Not a single one of the subjects who so misanswered was aware that they had done so to conform to the rest of the group; they had genuinely perceived that A was the closer match, because of the effect of conformity. These were completely healthy, normal individuals.
Do you understand the relevance? There are all manner of factors that make you see things that simply aren't there before we even get into mental illness. Of course, nearly one in 16 Americans have a serious mental illness that could cause hallucinations or mental artifacts, so it's not unreasonable to suggest some mental defect on your part, either.
But my point is that even a normal, healthy brain can be made to see things that simply aren't there at all. That's a known fact from psychology. What makes you think you're any different than a normal person?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by itrownot, posted 10-24-2007 2:34 AM itrownot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by itrownot, posted 10-24-2007 10:10 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 163 of 199 (430454)
10-25-2007 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by itrownot
10-24-2007 10:10 PM


Re: Confirmation Bias
crashfrog, I don't think you meant to say "always"---this is hyperbole, right?
I know that it's surprising the first time you find out what it really means to have a genuinely skeptical mindset, but no, it's not hyperbole.
It's always easiest to fool yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by itrownot, posted 10-24-2007 10:10 PM itrownot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by itrownot, posted 10-26-2007 12:28 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 166 of 199 (430557)
10-26-2007 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by itrownot
10-26-2007 12:28 AM


Re: Confirmation Bias
crashfrog...seriously, I get your point, it's just that your above statement is more "punny" than factual.
Did you read about the Asch conformity experiments, or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by itrownot, posted 10-26-2007 12:28 AM itrownot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by itrownot, posted 10-26-2007 2:43 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 170 of 199 (430656)
10-26-2007 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by itrownot
10-26-2007 2:43 PM


Re: Confirmation Bias
Message 158 by nator is a good post to reread, as Feynmen's caution applies equally to crashfrog and itrownot alike.
I never said that it was not.
Were you under the impression that I meant you specifically, itrownot, were the easiest person to fool? Like, out of all human beings, you're the most gullible?
I hardly believe that. You're the easiest person for you to fool. I'm the easiest person for myself to fool. I think you simply misunderstood what I was saying.
I'm simply asking you to accept the results of the Asch conformity experiment, and other experiments, that show that our own personal experiences can't be taken at face value, particularly when they contradict consensus reasoning and science. The easiest person to fool is yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by itrownot, posted 10-26-2007 2:43 PM itrownot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by itrownot, posted 10-26-2007 3:14 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 171 of 199 (430657)
10-26-2007 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by itrownot
10-26-2007 2:56 PM


Re: Confirmation Bias
If he has the evidence to back it up his original statement
My original statement that undiscernable self-deception is possible and common? Again, the Asch conformity experiment is the evidence. More than one-third of the participants in that trial experienced a visual hallucination simply as a result of other people disagreeing with them.
That's a fact. The Asch conformity experiment happened, that's a fact. Self-deception is possible, common, that's a fact. Exactly what are you objecting to being referred to as a "fact"? After all these posts I still don't have an idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by itrownot, posted 10-26-2007 2:56 PM itrownot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by itrownot, posted 10-26-2007 3:18 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 173 of 199 (430660)
10-26-2007 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by itrownot
10-26-2007 3:14 PM


Re: Confirmation Bias
I still don't understand what you're objecting to. Can you make an effort to be clearer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by itrownot, posted 10-26-2007 3:14 PM itrownot has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 175 of 199 (430662)
10-26-2007 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by itrownot
10-26-2007 3:18 PM


Re: Confirmation Bias
It is NOT "always easier to fool yourself"--anyone who has fooled someone at some time or other knows that by simple inspection.
To the contrary. Just because it's possible to fool another person doesn't mean that one can't be fooled, oneself.
Indeed, when another person tells us something, we usually apply a much greater degree of skepticism than we do to information received from our own senses. Indeed, no amount of external testimony can usually convince us that something we're seeing is false; in the Asch conformity experiment, the brain appears to subconsciously address that disparity by actually changing what is being seen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by itrownot, posted 10-26-2007 3:18 PM itrownot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by itrownot, posted 10-26-2007 5:32 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 179 of 199 (430683)
10-26-2007 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by itrownot
10-26-2007 5:32 PM


Re: Confirmation Bias
So, if I happen to fool you into thinking there's a spider crawling up your sleeve, then it would have been easier, according to your loosely formulated logic, for me to fool myself into thinking there's a spider crawling up your sleeve.
Sure. To fool me, you actually had to use some kind of physical device or surreptitious physical contact to simulate the sensation of a spider on my arm.
To fool yourself, all your brain had to do was imagine it happening. You can't get into my brain and make it supply false sensations, but you can certainly make your own do it. It's what's going on every night when you dream. It's what's going on in Pentecostal churches. It's what's going on during hypnosis. (It's why you can't hypnotize the unwilling.)
This is in effect what you are saying when you say "ALWAYS easier."
I've defended my statement, Itrow. People are skeptical of other people's reported experiences in a way they're not about their own sensory experiences. "Seeing is believing." The problem is when you see things that aren't there, and it's a lot easier to get yourself to see something that isn't there than it is to get someone else to do it.
And the evidence of psychology defends this view. Hell, the great lengths that religion has gone to in the past to enforce conversion among the unwilling defends this view.
You refuse to admit the obvious mistake, perhaps because it's embarassing for your argument's sake, so you keep dancing around it in a vain effort to justify it.
I still don't understand what you think is a mistake. I suspect you're harping on this point to conceal your abject failure to defend your own "evidence" for the existence of God, the evidence that was supposedly so convincing but, yet, completely failed to materialize. Funny, that.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by itrownot, posted 10-26-2007 5:32 PM itrownot has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 185 of 199 (430743)
10-27-2007 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by itrownot
10-26-2007 8:25 PM


Re: Confirmation Bias
You still don't understand, Itrow. I say "always" because there's no situation where the inherent uncertainty and potential for confabulation and fantasy associated with direct personal experience can simply be dismissed.
None. Nothing. There's no situation where one can justifiably set aside the uncertainty and inaccuracy of one's own experience.
and several other posters are now carrying in the water for him, acting as if the stakes are high on the outcome of it.
I assure you, there's relatively few people here (apparently) who hold me in high enough esteem to "carry my water," and I don't need them to in any case. People are disagreeing with you because you're simply wrong.
If I was wrong, I'd be the first to admit it. The problem is that I'm not - you are. That you refuse to believe it and can't convince any other person of the legitimacy of your position is simply more evidence of how easy it is to fool yourself. See? You're doing it now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by itrownot, posted 10-26-2007 8:25 PM itrownot has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024