Religion IS crazy!

[cynic]

Your noticing patterns because your ignoring all the other little bits that don't fit the pattern, as i said confirmation bias.

Does Dawkins treat every rock that is dug out of the ground as proof of prehistoric life?
If I recall correctly, he only focuses on the interesting ones that look like they might resemble something that can fit into Darwin's Evolution theory!

However you're quite correct, Dawkins does indeed suffer from confirmation bias!

 

[pavilion103]

There are numerous examples of saying/doing things that are meant with the nicest and sincerest intentions but really mean nothing. When I'm at the checkout I often say - "Thankyou, I hope you have a great day". Whether or not the person has a great day will have nothing to do with my hoping, but if it is said warmly and with sincerity the person almost always responds positively and with a smile - and with a "you to." On a day such as today, to criticise and belittle a comment such as "You are in our thoughts and prayers" is petty, weak and largely immature. Regardless of religious beliefs, most emotionally and intellectually mature people would look behind the comment to the compassionate, wholehearted and genuine message it conveyed. Surely Australian haven't become that detached from their religious heritage, that this comment can cause offense and consternation I know there are large numbers of the Australian population that are no longer "church attending worshippers", however if Bunyip's view is now commonplace - stop the bus please I want to get off. This thread has plenty of comments that come across as lordly, patronizing and dripping of condemnation - ironically most coming from those who attack religious institutions for supposedly holding those very same views. Duckman

Great post in relation to the "thoughts and prayers" comments.

Highly disturbing that the first thing someone would do after such a tragedy is to belittle such a comment.

 

[Value Collector]

Does Dawkins treat every rock that is dug out of the ground as proof of prehistoric life?
If I recall correctly, he only focuses on the interesting ones that look like they might resemble something that can fit into Darwin's Evolution theory!

However you're quite correct, Dawkins does indeed suffer from confirmation bias!

Good scientists are always able to name things that would prove them wrong and use peer reviewed studies to weed out any personal confirmation bias.

If you spoke to Dawkins, he would probably list a whole host of things that would disprove the evolution theory, scientists often make predictions about things that will disprove their theories.

I think you need to watch this. it only goes for less than 5mins, but it is a good demonstration on how to avoid confirmation bias, and shows how we all can suffer from it because we tend to look for patterns that go along with the ideas we already believe.

 

[FxTrader]

I'm willing to entertain the possibility of one day discovering that some of my beliefs are wrong! Every so often I use critical thinking to review my belief system. Are you willing to apply your critical thinking to your perception of reality?

Indeed, I don't just entertain the possibility, I have subjected many previous beliefs (including those related to religion) to critical review and self-reflection and come to the conclusion they were wrong. Events like 911 for instance challenged my complacency that religious convictions were largely a benign force in human society, now I regard religion and the myths it's based on as the poisonous cancer it really is. I have discarded belief systems and dogmas such as those embodied in the doctrines of the major religions in favor of a philosophy of living in the moment since that's all we really have.

I don't confuse my moment by moment perception of reality with absolute truth; therefore I am open to being proved wrong where there is convincing evidence to the contrary – unlike the closed, indoctrinated minds of the religious.

 

[cynic]

Yes, but dictionaries only describe usage of words, words can have multiple meanings,

When i use the word faith, I am meaning " strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof "

This is the type of faith we are talking about here, When using that definition of faith, I don't have faith in anything.

However, if you are going to try and bait and switch again by inserting another usage of the word such as, "
complete trust or confidence in someone or something" then it's useless, because that is not the usage the atheists or the theists are referring to.

We've been down this road before!!! I even gave you the dictionary definition and root derivation of the word!!Have you already forgotten our earlier dialogue during the science is a religion debate!

Good scientists are always able to name things that would prove them wrong and use peer reviewed studies to weed out any personal confirmation bias.

If you spoke to Dawkins, he would probably list a whole host of things that would disprove the evolution theory, scientists often make predictions about things that will disprove their theories.
...

I am not claiming to know your mind..
Don't you find it weird that these facts which appear so self evident to you have been missed by main stream science.

I think you need to watch this...

So not only have you claimed to know the mind of myself, Hitler, Newton etc. you now claim to be able to speak for Dawkins as well!!!
Who do you think you are? (Are you God?!!!)

.. It's just that I don't experience some posters as being at all receptive to any information that contradicts their personal philosophy and hence do not wish to waste too much of my time!
...
The evidence is right in front of our eyes! Some prefer to overlook this in favour of the perception of believing themselves to be members of the most intelligent species in the multiverse and more intelligent than their ancestors. The evidence uncovered by their very own science does not support such vanity!

 

[cynic]

Indeed, I don't just entertain the possibility, I have subjected many previous beliefs (including those related to religion) to critical review and self-reflection and come to the conclusion they were wrong. Events like 911 for instance challenged my complacency that religious convictions were largely a benign force in human society, now I regard religion and the myths it's based on as the poisonous cancer it really is. I have discarded belief systems and dogmas such as those embodied in the doctrines of the major religions in favor of a philosophy of living in the moment since that's all we really have.

I don't confuse my moment by moment perception of reality with absolute truth; therefore I am open to being proved wrong where there is convincing evidence to the contrary – unlike the closed, indoctrinated minds of the religious.

Congratulations!! You've found your very own personal religion!!!

 

[FxTrader]

Congratulations!! You've found your very own personal religion!!!

Yet more repetitive, patronizing sophistry, sigh.

 

[Value Collector]

So not only have you claimed to know the mind of myself, Hitler, Newton etc. you now claim to be able to speak for Dawkins as well!!!

Let me say for the record once again, I am not claiming to know peoples minds when I am referring to opinions those individuals have expressed them selves in interviews or their own publications.

For the record, both Dawkins and Darwin have made predictions on things that would disprove the theory of evolution.

for example, Dawkins has regularly said if we were to find things out of place in the fossil record, then this would disprove evolution theory, eg, finding a human or other modern mammals in the Precambrian period rocks would blow the evolution theory out of the water.

so where as you seem to just identify things that go along with your hypothesis, real scientists will be looking for ways to prove them selves wrong

 

[cynic]

Let me say for the record once again, I am not claiming to know peoples minds when I am referring to opinions those individuals have expressed them selves in interviews or their own publications.

For the record, both Dawkins and Darwin have made predictions on things that would disprove the theory of evolution.

for example, Dawkins has regularly said if we were to find things out of place in the fossil record, then this would disprove evolution theory, eg, finding a human or other modern mammals in the Precambrian period rocks would blow the evolution theory out of the water.

so where as you seem to just identify things that go along with your hypothesis, real scientists will be looking for ways to prove them selves wrong

Your immutable faith in the infallibility of the teachings of Dawkins is truly amazing!

The fact that you've invested yourself into his religion doesn't grant you license to needlessly attack those with alternative beliefs!

 

[cynic]

Yet more repetitive, patronizing sophistry, sigh.

Not to worry! Just recognise that this is another opportunity for you to impress us with your self acclaimed critical thinking skills!

 

[DeepState]

Survey from Pew recently released on religious attitudes and warmth to varying stripes in the US.

http://www.pewforum.org/2014/07/16/how-americans-feel-about-religious-groups/

My estimation and cognitive orb conjectures that a selection of the ASF frequenters to this discursive filament may find the contents entrancing. However I cannot offer certification of my existence or even yours. I can only surmise so. Thus the attachment may not, itself, be a worldly concern at all and just an imaginary flicker in your sentience.

Whatever...

 

[cynic]

Survey from Pew recently released on religious attitudes and warmth to varying stripes in the US.

http://www.pewforum.org/2014/07/16/how-americans-feel-about-religious-groups/

My estimation and cognitive orb conjectures that a selection of the ASF frequenters to this discursive filament may find the contents entrancing. However I cannot offer certification of my existence or even yours. I can only surmise so. Thus the attachment may not, itself, be a worldly concern at all and just an imaginary flicker in your sentience.

Whatever...

I've taken the liberty of bolding part of your post because I loved what you had to say in those particular sentences and am in agreement.

That's an interesting survey in that it contained some results that I'd have anticipated with one or two surprises mixed in.

Given that there is a very large number of diverse religions in the US, do you consider the population sample size (approx. 3K) to be sufficient?

 

[DeepState]

Given that there is a very large number of diverse religions in the US, do you consider the population sample size (approx. 3K) to be sufficient?

Does it suffice? The query is indeterminable. In what capacity is the sample size relevant to, exactly? Even then, should this elucidation be forthcoming, the interpretation can only be weighed equally with the well worn guideline "how long is a piece of string?" There is no attainable knowledge that can close this. We are left the scraps and must satisfice, acquainting ourselves well with the shortcomings in our ability to perceive and discern the truth. Perception and truth are akin to a hound pursuing a fox, where the gap can sometimes seem to tantalizingly close, only to drift apart again. In this chase, the hound will never catch the fox. The question is insoluble. But the chase excites as a result of the possibility and, perhaps, in the arrogance that the alter of truth can be scaled and arms raised as we stand upon it. In the gap, hopes, beliefs, imagination and misinterpretations of accidental and purposeful design strain to quench the unforgiving void. Then, like quarrelsome children, take punches at each other in an impossible contest to attain complete victory over the bloodied rest. Some children of these beliefs take a more natural bent to pugilistic approaches than the others. Others pursue their own chosen path occasionally fending of irritation. No path is capable of complete invalidation or, for that matter, affirmation.

Is religion crazy? Or is pursuing the question crazy? I am merely mortal and the truth of those questions, I know, is beyond me. But I can get hold of some useful pharmacology.

Have fun out there.

 

[Value Collector]

Your immutable faith in the infallibility of the teachings of Dawkins is truly amazing!

The fact that you've invested yourself into his religion doesn't grant you license to needlessly attack those with alternative beliefs!

You brought up Dawkins, not me.

I see your trying to misdirect the conversation again rather than actually deal with your confirmation bias.

 

[cynic]

You brought up Dawkins, not me.

I see your trying to misdirect the conversation again rather than actually deal with your confirmation bias.

It's so terribly kind of you to notice that I was in need of some additional cognitive limitations.

Please accept my gratitude for your generosity in offering to give me some of yours.

Regretfully I must decline your kind offer, as I suspect that confirmation bias to be non-transferrable and am currently unaware of any mechanism whereby I can deal with such bias on another's behalf!

So I'm sorry to say you'll have to find another way to address this aspect of your body of cognitive limitations.

 

[Value Collector]

It's so terribly kind of you to notice that I was in need of some additional cognitive limitations.

Please accept my gratitude for your generosity in offering to give me some of yours.

Regretfully I must decline your kind offer, as I suspect that confirmation bias to be non-transferrable and am currently unaware of any mechanism whereby I can deal with such bias on another's behalf!

So I'm sorry to say you'll have to find another way to address this aspect of your body of cognitive limitations.

I think you just like listening to your own dribble.

You can't even hold a conversation without attempting to misdirect the conversation or accusing people of the very things your guilty of.

I must admit it made me laugh when you accused fx trader of making up his own religion, coming from you, a guy who openly admitted he believes he is a microbe living inside a larger more intelligent life form, it seemed very rich indeed.

I can forgive pav and tink, I think they were brain washed from a young age, you however brain washed yourself willingly.

For all the science you say you have studied, you seem to have missed some of the most important basic foundations of the scientific method, any way good luck with that, of all the posters here you are the most intellectually dishonest, so much so you fool yourself.

 

[cynic]

...I have observed scientific evidence that is supportive of the concept of our species, planet and solar system being a direct product of a very large and intelligent life form.

I will be more than happy to put the time into brushing the dust off my physics,chemistry and biology textbooks and websearching (so that I can provide links to identical information) if you're genuinely interested, but

And your free to over state yours I guess.

if that's your attitude then it's quite evident that I'd be wasting time that could be better spent elsewhere. I'd rather be spending my time increasing my knowledge than wasting it on a futile attempt to share it with an unwilling subject!

As far as I am aware, nothing in those scientific fields has pointed to a god. But I would be happy to look at any evidence you can provide. Why not start with your best piece of evidence. I have been down this road with creationists before, and it doesn't normally take long before they need to commit logical fallacies to prove there god, So lets just start with your best piece of evidence, so I can get a feel for the kind of things you count as evidence.

...I think you need to watch this. it only goes for less than 5mins, but it is a good demonstration on how to avoid confirmation bias, and shows how we all can suffer from it because we tend to look for patterns that go along with the ideas we already believe...

I think you just like listening to your own dribble.

You can't even hold a conversation without attempting to misdirect the conversation or accusing people of the very things your guilty of.

I must admit it made me laugh when you accused fx trader of making up his own religion, coming from you, a guy who openly admitted he believes he is a microbe living inside a larger more intelligent life form, it seemed very rich indeed.

I can forgive pav and tink, I think they were brain washed from a young age, you however brain washed yourself willingly.

For all the science you say you have studied, you seem to have missed some of the most important basic foundations of the scientific method, any way good luck with that, of all the posters here you are the most intellectually dishonest, so much so you fool yourself.

You repeatedly asked for me to provide evidence despite my deep reservations regarding the purity (or lack thereof) of your intent.

Don't abuse and blame me for the discomfort you're experiencing from the established scientific facts that I provided in response to your repeated requests!

I didn't do this to you!

YOU DID IT TO YOURSELF!!!

As stated just shortly before we commenced this recent dialogue:

...
Unfortunately there are those that choose to cling tightly to derogatory assumptions about their religious opposition.

Such assumptions often arise pursuant to a personal agenda founded on avoidance of deep insecurities. Such individuals cling tightly to their chosen ideology (whether it be theistic, atheistic or other) and are reluctant to acknowledge any conflicting truth for the simple reason of unwillingness to embrace the fear that arises from confrontation with their personal issues. So it becomes just another crusade where every party likes to believe that the facts/truth/God/s is/are on their side and filters the evidence accordingly.

 

[Tink]

Good on you, cynic.

An excellent post, duckman, regarding thoughts and prayers.

VC, you call people brainwashed yet you constantly post youtubes in here with Dawkins, who is brainwashed?
I don't appreciate you putting up pictures of brains and lies when anyone mentions something that is against how you think.
Most of these people that have contributed aren't even religious, yet you don't want to hear it?
Anyone that has come in here with a different view has to repeat themselves constantly saying they aren't religious, what does that say?
That you have your own religion.

Cynic has talked about science often in all his posts, so how do you conclude that he doesn't believe in science.
I am happy to sit and watch discussions progress, but its the likes of you and a few others that have just stopped them from going anywhere.

Rumpole has mentioned a few things and where did that discussion go, apart from you talking about fairies.

What is the point of these discussions when it never gets off the ground with hard religious folk like you, that constantly push their own.

 

[pavilion103]

All the attributes VC describes about the religious are actually being displayed in his posting and he is copping a hammering for it now.

Despite more posters rising up and pointing this out he is completely blind to it and "everyone else is wrong".

VC is the most fanatical person in this thread. He should use this persistence doing Amway or something!

Pushing his agenda. Abusing people who don't agree. Calling anyone who disagrees with him brainwashed. Saying others don't believe in science despite them using scientific evidence and his position lacking scientific evidence.

All I see is insecurities in his own position.

 

[Value Collector]

Don't abuse and blame me for the discomfort you're experiencing from the established scientific facts that I provided in response to your repeated requests!

Scientific facts to not discomfort me, Your constant misdirection, twisting and failure to recognise your own confirmation bias does.