|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there a legitimate argument for design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PlanManStan Member (Idle past 3715 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
(I just saw the bottom part of your message, sorry)
It's not that I don't want to admit that I do not know, but that, as I am a "negative skepticist" (I want to refrain from using a term that retricts me, as if that's how I always think, but it is handy here), I look for proof of existence. All non-proved things are false. For example, most babies, although they cannot articulate it, are atheists. That is, they have no belief in a God. Only when the case for God is made to them do they begin to believe. I am a similar way. I can understand agnosticism (go either way on the matter), and I guess it really is just a pseudo-life philosophy choice. Whatever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... All non-proved things are false. ... No, all non-proved things are non-proved things. You don't know they are false and saying they are false is a non-proven thing and therefore -- by your very own reasoning -- false. Ardent belief and ardent denial are equally irrational.
... For example, most babies, although they cannot articulate it, are atheists. That is, they have no belief in a God. ... Oh brother ... no they are ignostic if anything, unaware of the issue, and therefore incapable of deciding one way or the other.
... I guess it really is just a pseudo-life philosophy choice hrmm ... it's just a philosophical choice, nothing pseudo (with negative overtones) or life affecting about it -- an intellectual pursuit. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PlanManStan Member (Idle past 3715 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
Either you are quote-mining or I mispoke on my position. All things non-proved TO ME, I TREAT as unreal. For example, if gravity was not proved to me, I would go about my life without fear of falling, because I would have no reason to fear it. The minute gravity was proven to me, I would be much more careful! [quote]Ardent belief and ardent denial are equally irration[qs/quote]. I wouldn't say so. Ardent denial is definitely irrational, but commitment to cause is not always a negative. Commitment to a cause can bring about wonderful changes (e.g. The French and American revolutions, Spartacus' slave revolt, etc.). While "wonderful" is clearly sujective, what isn't subjective is that those people like Spartacus were very commited to bettering their position, which is a good thing. (I hope to God you can follow that ).
"no they are ignostic if anything, unaware of the issue, and therefore incapable of deciding one way or the other." I would disagree. It is impossible to say, however, because, you know, they're babies and cannot speak or even eat solid food yet. Like I keep saying, there is not a right or wrong answer. You can be a positive skepticist and I can be a negative skepticist and we will usually come to the same conclusions. For example, we can both agree on the existence of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, light's wave and particle properties, and what wavelength of light the color red is (supposedly -- our reds could be entirely different).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Is there a legitimate scientific argument to made for ID? No, but there's lots of really bad ones. That's nearly the same thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Either you are quote-mining or I mispoke on my position. ... You can check the quote, so it seems you mispoke or were careless in word choices. No biggie.
... All things non-proved TO ME, I TREAT as unreal. For example, if gravity was not proved to me, I would go about my life without fear of falling, because I would have no reason to fear it. The minute gravity was proven to me, I would be much more careful! ... And yet you would be affected by gravity whether you knew about it or not, believed in it or not, you wouldn't suddenly be capable of falling only once some "proved" gravity to you (with caveat that science doesn't 'prove' - it can demonstrate (replicate) and it can explain (theory) but it is still tentative).
... I wouldn't say so. Ardent denial is definitely irrational, but commitment to cause is not always a negative. Commitment to a cause can bring about wonderful changes (e.g. The French and American revolutions, Spartacus' slave revolt, etc.). While "wonderful" is clearly sujective, what isn't subjective is that those people like Spartacus were very commited to bettering their position, which is a good thing. Interesting point. Commitment to a goal that one believes will benefit yourself and others ... not sure the French revolution was all that clear a victory, and the US is sliding into a corporatist fascism with the ability of companies to buy elections ... was Spartacus real? Is it rational to go to war, is war rational? Certainly this is one of the claims for evolutionary benefit for religion -- that it forged determination in followers to overcome hardships. But is it really rational to joust at windmills all the time?
I would disagree. It is impossible to say, however, because, you know, they're babies and cannot speak or even eat solid food yet. ... Ignosticism | Atheism | Fandom
... Like I keep saying, there is not a right or wrong answer. ... ah ... you don't know ... good.
... You can be a positive skepticist and I can be a negative skepticist and we will usually come to the same conclusions. For example, we can both agree on the existence of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, light's wave and particle properties, and what wavelength of light the color red is (supposedly ... positive, impartial, negative ... it's a spectrum not a dichotomy. Being open-minded ≠ positive or negative, but considers both equally unproven, either is possible. All things being equal we can have high confidence that things tomorrow will behave the way they did today.
... -- our reds could be entirely different). But we can agree on the wavelength definition for the range of red in the spectrum, and we can measure the response of color sensing rods\cones in our eyes and ... as long as neither is red\green colorblind ... presumably determine similar nerve response. Endby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PlanManStan Member (Idle past 3715 days) Posts: 73 Joined:
|
The fact that there is no right or wrong answer is not the same as not knowing. There is a big difference. And Spartacus was real and a huge embarrasment to the Roman Empire (or Republic, I'm not sure). And that whole corporate facism thing is both up for debate and not an immediate "descendant" of the revolutionary war.
I guess I must be close-minded in your view, but I disbelieve based on facts contrary to it and believe based on facts beneficient to it. And war can definitely be rational, but only under given, subjective circumstances -- but justied and rational nontheless to the people at hand. As for "jousting at windmills", it can definitely have an effect on people. Religion gives comfort gives happiness gives more productivity gives better surival. And with my gravity example. Gravity is bad example becaues we know it to be true. I said that I would not believe in gravity because I hadn't seen evidence for it. While this doesn't stop it from happening if it really did exist, it does change my perspective of the world quite a bit. I think you take "open-mindedness" a bit too far. You can think something is true based on evidence but still have an open mind, like I have demonstrated with examples from my own life. Anything I missed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The fact that there is no right or wrong answer is not the same as not knowing. ... Ah, so you know the answer then. Do you know the right answer or the wrong answer?
... And Spartacus was real and a huge embarrasment to the Roman Empire (or Republic, I'm not sure). And that whole corporate facism thing is both up for debate and not an immediate "descendant" of the revolutionary war. It's an immediate descent of the capitalist economic system, and if you don't believe it then you are living in fantasy land ... imho ... Spartacus - Wikipedia
quote: Doesn't look like the Kirk Douglas movie character ...
... And war can definitely be rational, but only under given, subjective circumstances -- but justied and rational nontheless to the people at hand. That war can be rationalized does not make it rational. The rationalization process is the cognitive dissonance resolution of contradictory ideas.
As for "jousting at windmills", it can definitely have an effect on people. Religion gives comfort gives happiness gives more productivity gives better surival. And with my gravity example. Gravity is bad example becaues we know it to be true. I said that I would not believe in gravity because I hadn't seen evidence for it. While this doesn't stop it from happening if it really did exist, it does change my perspective of the world quite a bit. What is true is true whether you believe it or not. Reality doesn't know or care about your beliefs. Learning about gravity is learning the details of how we currently think\understand it operates, a process that is still under development.
I think you take "open-mindedness" a bit too far. ... Thank you.
... You can think something is true based on evidence but still have an open mind, like I have demonstrated with examples from my own life. ... Yet that is how your worldview operates. Everyone has a set of opinions, beliefs, learned facts, education and experiences, etc. that all go in to how they interpret what they see, both on a day to day level and when confronted with new information. The more new information fits into your existing worldview the easier it is for you to accept it without question ... Such as your comment that babies are atheists -- sounded reasonable to you so you accepted it and did not question that to be an atheist you need information about what you are not believing, that until you have such information you would be ignostic. There are many things you would be ignostic about growing up -- RNA and the RNA world for one The more new information conflicts with your worldview the harder it is for you to accept it without question ... and this can result in denial and disbelief of the new information if the conflict is great enough. Being open minded means lower those barriers to new information. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PlanManStan Member (Idle past 3715 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
I'm sorry, but what don't you understand about "there is not a right or wronng answer". You are missing the point, and it is my fault. I don't mean there are two differing opinions about, like, the death penalty, but that there is no evidence either way! And if we are blaming the capitalist economic system, it is hardly the USA's fault. You have to go back to Volaire's time for that. And yes, Spartacus never wanted to end slavery, but did want to fight for his own and his fellow slaves' freedom. Initially, he was to go to Gaul and the surrounding regions and disband, but his men convinced him to stay in Italy and plunder.
What information that conflicts with my worldview are you talking about? Your statements seem contradictory. I would argue that the more you know, the easier it is to accept new information, because you would understand the mechanics of it better (statistically speaking, of course). And you can be agnostic about the RNA world theory, I don't care because there really is little evidence for it. How exactly am I close-minded, anyway? I accept new information, but I do it by first validating it. And yes, gravity would continue to operate regardless of what happened to me. You are missing the point of the analogy. I go about my life...let's say NOT belieiving in the RNA world because there has not been enough evidence given to me. Now, the RNA world MAY still be true, but I will operate as though it is not, because I have not seen the evidence, if there is any. What's wrong with your views is that you take everything very fickle-y. "Well, it MAY be true, we can never really know". I don't see you questioning gravity! . Did I miss anything?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
but I will operate as though it is not, because I have not seen the evidence, I wonder how far you actually take that approach. Let's say that you're walking down a dark alley in a big city at night. Are you really totally fearless of being mugged, or do you still kinda get scared a bit? What if you hear the sound of a can being kicked? Do you still operate as if you're alone, because you don't have evidence that you're not? And when a guy jumps out and says "I have a gun, gimme your money?" Do you really tell him that you don't believe him unless you actually see the gun? I'd bet that you don't really operate under the approach that something doesn't exist until you have evidence for it, but rather, it is just a point to make for the question of god's existence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PlanManStan Member (Idle past 3715 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
Actually, no, I wouldn't think he'd have a gun. I would be scared (with a liberal definiton of scared, of course) because I would know that someone who looks like him or be in his situation might definitely carry a gun, but I would resist until I was shown the gun. And if I heard a can being kicked, I would know there was something there, either an animal or a person. I would have more evidence that it was a person, however, because it is in a big city, where very few animals are large enough to kick a can except a human. Were I in the country, it might go differently...
Note- it is impossible to know what you would do when faced with a gun or death, this is what i would like myself to do. I hope that makes sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I would be scared (with a liberal definiton of scared, of course) because I would know that someone who looks like him or be in his situation might definitely carry a gun, but I would resist until I was shown the gun. Of course you'd be scared. And that fear of the unknown that we all get from time to time, is us not operating as though something does not exist until it is shown that it does. We just don't work that way. When considering gods in online discussions, people like to act like they disbelieve stuff until it's shown to them, but out in the real world we just don't act like that. We've evolved such that a "noise in the bush" generates a response rather than not, because running away from a bird that sounded like a lion kept our ancestors alive and sticking around and waiting to see that it was actually a lion left people dead.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PlanManStan Member (Idle past 3715 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
Fear is an evolved trait to help us survive because it allows us to make adrenaline when something startles us, like a predator jumping out from the trees, yes. But there is a fundamental difference. In the big city, I would have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a person nearby, as I detailed in my post before. When faced with a noise in a bush, I have no reason to think it is not a squirrel and really a tiger, but, like you said, I evolved that way. That is not to say I really think there is a tiger, but the experience is still startling. What is your point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
In the big city, I would have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a person nearby, as I detailed in my post before. Well its my scenario so I get to make up the details. It was actually a cat that knocked the can off a trash bin.
What is your point? You don't really operate as though something doesn't exist until you've seen the evidence for it. That position works in an online discussion about the existence of god, but out in the real world people just don't behave that way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PlanManStan Member (Idle past 3715 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
Okay, let's say it was a cat. That's irrevalent. I could safely assume it was a person because, statiscally, that is who it would have been. Both you and that deist guy keep focusing on "well, it was actually this or that". That is not the point. The point is how you find your answer, based on reason and math and science or based on "well it could go either way..."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The details of the scenario are irrelevant. Its beside the point.
The point is that people don't always operate as though something doesn't exist until they've seen the evidence for it.
The point is how you find your answer, based on reason and math and science or based on "well it could go either way..." We don't always have the luxury of having good data.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024