I keep getting lectured that I should believe a deity is real first, and then it will show itself, but why would I care then? If a deity can't be bothered to offer some evidence then it can fuck off, as I'd want nothing to do with a deity that is prepared to hide from me unless I am prepared to make gullible leaps of faith, that require me to become suggestible first before it will show itself.
I won't believe any claim until a reasonable amount of objective evidence is demonstrated for it, as I require for all other claims of course. Why should I treat this claim or any single deity differently to all other claims and all other deities, that is absurdly biased. No truth can be validated with such a biased perspective, that is axiomatic.
So please don't come to me with cliched platitudes about faith, you might as well be lecturing me about unicorn husbandry. If you can demonstrate no objective evidence then you're wasting my time, and offending my reason.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Sheldon:
It's the Xtian Catch 22. You can't have evidence until you believe. And if you don't have evidence, you can't believe.
[EDITED TO MAKE SENSE]
"You can't have evidence until you believe."
I had plans to write a thread defending such a position, because many don't seem aware (including other scientists) of how important beliefs and perspective are to recognition; shifts in beliefs and frames of mind are a prerequisite to perceiving things such as evidence. But unless the forum improves the quality of its members I'm just wasting my own time.
I'll bet you don't see the irony when you're offering nothing but yet another petty ad hominem fallacy.
You could always take your "expertise" to a creatard forum John, where the standard of poster will be more sympatico with your verbiage.
They'll lap it up John, in case I wasn't being clear. As you seem to desire aprobation for your claims, and want to preach creationism while pretending it's science without the hindrance of anyone pointing out it's creationist bullshit, this seems your best move.
""You can't have evidence until you believe."
Breezy "I had plans to write a thread defending such a position, because many don't seem aware (including other scientists)"
*Other scientists, good one.
Real scientists more like. Leave it to a creationist to claim science involves unevidenced beliefs, hilarious. You can keep claiming that the first part of the process is all that's required John, but no one who has even a basic understand of the scientific process is fooled. A scientific consensus is every bit as important a part of the process as a genius who believes they understand something no one else does.
The idea you are such a genius because you claim to be on the internet, now that is gut wrenchingly funny, but that's creationists for you. Delusional...
*** @ "But unless the forum improves the quality of its members I'm just wasting my own time."
We all agree. Not only are you wasting your time but you are frequently waiting ours as well. More blind assertions and erroneously fabricated conclusions, we just don't need. I for one would like to thank you for having the courtesy to edit yourself for once.
Enough members have defended me against such accusations throughout my time here, that I'm confident I haven't wasted anybody's time. Plenty of members contribute worthwhile conversations; sadly they are often drowned out by the chaos of others.
John
What evidence do you have a God is real?
The bible is the claim, not the evidence.
Well, the argument I wanted to defend is that belief comes fist and evidence second. There are more examples of this than I can think of, but a simple one has to do with research on how bias affects the reading of, say, a neutral political paper.
Your beliefs filter and transform information; its as if you are blind to evidence until you shift your perspective.
@John 61X Breezy: Your beliefs filter and transform information
I'd accept that people who already have a certain perspective are likely to be less critical when reading a political paper, for example, that aligns with their own viewpoint. But in the opposite case, the instinctive reaction when reading something that opposes your viewpoint is to demand evidence so that you can try to refute it.
Doesn't this pattern also apply to religions? Don't you read non-Christian religious material with a critical and skeptical eye?
Critical sure but not skeptical. I would say this pattern applies across the board to all humans.
However, the point I want to make goes beyond being more critical, and steps more into what can only be called a "cognitive blindness." At the most basic level we know that, for example, it takes longer to visually recognize objects that aren't were you expect them to be. The reverse is also true, recognition is facilitated when an object matches expectations, such as a bowling pin in a bowling alley.
But take it a step higher, and you can see how even scientists themselves become essentially blind to evidence that exists outside of their own perspective. Within my field the best examples have been between the behaviorists and neuroscientists, or nature vs nurture. Each school sort of becomes lost within itself, even to the point of redefining entities to fit the narrative. For example, to the behaviorists, language becomes verbal behavior, perception becomes discrimination, and memory becomes learning. The redefining that comes with the ideology enables you to find the evidence that supports it and become blind to the evidence that doesn't.
For example, we've talked about brainwashing before, and brainwashing is a very behaviorist-oriented view. You tend to talk about brainwashing as if it was real, and I don't doubt that through your eyes you see evidence for it all the time. I however lean towards the nature side of things, and I see evidence everywhere that a child's nature makes most of what a parent teaches them obsolete.
To see the evidence that a behaviorist sees, you need believe what the behaviorist believes. Now, I do think belief can be a strong word, but you definitely need at least momentarily adopt their frame of reference "as-if" you believed it.
@John 61X Breezy:
Scientists who become blind to evidence outside of their own perspective are guilty of bad science. That's why we have the peer review process. Aren't all religions like bad science? They start out with preconceived notions and then look for evidence to support them or suppress evidence that negates their beliefs.
Brainwashing is very real where parents/teachers/preachers and children are concerned. Ask any atheist who's grown up in a religious environment how hard it is to break free of those chains. I agree with Loyola on that one.
Its only bad science if you have an unrealistic view of science. Science is people at the end of the day, and this is how people do science. Inherent in the very word peer-reviewed, is that your peers are doing the reviewing. These are often like minded individuals, who share your perspective, and are researching the same questions as you.
John 61X Breezy: Inherent in the very word peer-reviewed, is that your peers are doing the reviewing.
Well that's a bit cynical. Do you also think that funding committees, ethics review boards, the editorial boards of scientific journals, and the Nobel Prize committee are likely to be blinded their own prejudices?
Wherever there is money involved, there will be politics. Maybe the ethics review board is the exception, since they function more as the peacekeepers. I don't think its cynical; these are realities that most scientists are aware of to some degree. I think maybe outsiders view scientific journals as sacred documents; but to scientists these are just means of communication. Computer scientists work in such a fast-paced field that they almost prefer to bypass the publishing process. Conferences is where they exchange a lot of their ideas.
My job right now is to read about 20 published articles a week, and come to class ready to critique them; talk about what we think the researchers did wrong or right and whether or not we agree with their conclusions. Basically, I do in class what I've always done in these forums. except that in class I'm seen as a scientists, and here I'm seen as a science denier.
“except that in class I'm seen as a scientists, and here I'm seen as a science denier.”
In class you are more likely seen as a student.
I thought you said you only recently got your undergrad degree. And was it a BA or a BS you were just recently awarded?
@ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy
"Its only bad science if you have an unrealistic view of science. Science is people at the end of the day, and this is how people do science. Inherent in the very word peer-reviewed, is that your peers are doing the reviewing. These are often like minded individuals, who share your perspective, and are researching the same questions as you."
You do a disservice to science. Science is just a process. Yes, people are involved in the chain, but not all of them agree on details or even philosophy. And many scientific theories (the most obvious Einstein's Theory of Relativity) are very difficult to grasp on initial exposure. But the scientific community did not reject Einstein, they took the papers home, read them carefully, did a lot of pondering and checking. But in the end, Einstein's theory won the day. Not based on perception or personality, but numbers on a piece of paper.
I mentioned that people are part of the scientific process. But the community is so large and well-informed that only valid ideas can pass the litmus test. Additionally, since they are fallible people, some are fierce competitors, while others seek their share of glory by disproving a theory. Theories get attacked mercilessly.
Also, you do not pick your peers. The moment you publish a paper it is wide open to anyone and everyone. Those who read such papers is not a closed community.
In the end, it is not personality or even perception, but hard facts that win the day in science.
"To see the evidence that a behaviorist sees, you need believe what the behaviorist believes."
I don't care what "evidence" anyone else claims to have seen, only what they can objectively demonstrate.
"you definitely need at least momentarily adopt their frame of reference "as-if" you believed it."
Not if you remotely care that what you believe is objectively valid. Which is why an objective method like science is so important, as it doesn't require surrendering objectivity to adopt someone else's subjective frame of reference, it requires a universally objective standard for all claims. What a person believes and what they have experienced is utterly irrelevant unless or until they can demonstrate objective evidence for the belief or claim.
@algebe
"something that opposes your viewpoint is to demand evidence so that you can try to refute it."
And that's part of the problem. You're so worried about refuting something you never take a moment to actually look at in a unbiased way and even consider that it might be true. You're reading it with the beleif and conviction that it's already wrong instead of being intellectually honest to yourself and give it a fair and unbiased chance.
@Searching for Truth You're so worried about refuting something you never take a moment to actually look at in a unbiased way and even consider that it might be true.
It works both ways. You can be so worried about losing your belief that you never take a moment to actually look at it in an unbiased way and even consider that it might be false.
Soooo not tru dude. So many people were raised in the faith and were possibly too sheltered then started studying philosophy, science, etc and left the faith. Later as they've looked further into it, they realize their mistake and come back stronger. I'm not saying this is ALWAYS the case obviously, but it should be taken into consideration. All those people see the arguments and see the points atheist make and say "Hm ok that actually makes sense.That's a good question. Maybe they're right." Change views, but then they study further and realize "Ohhh that's the answer. Now it makes sense."
We do take ur arguments seriously and can be affected by them.
@Steeee: We do take ur arguments seriously
And which of the countless competing and conflicting sects of Christianity do you represent with that statement?
they realize their mistake and come back stronger.
Could it be that their childhood assimilation was just too strong and deep? Perhaps they couldn't face the rejection and isolation from family and friends. Religions of love and peace can be very judgmental and cruel toward apostates.
Steeee, you wrote, “So many people were raised in the faith and were possibly too sheltered then started studying......”
So many? How many?
The existence of something that is not detectable is not falsifiable: it can neither be proved true or false. The only thing we can safely say is that an undetectable thing has no effect on reality. It is inane to even consider that an undetectable thing might be true.
And now it is skeptics who are narrow-minded and intellectually dishonest?
Oh do behave, intellectually honest, that's risible nonsense. You set a different standard for belief in your deity than you do for Breezy's and he does the same for yours. Only atheists set the same objective standard for all deities on here.
If you are going to claim intellectual honesty then why have you evaded these questions?
Is it ever objectively moral for a 50+ year old man to rape a nine year old child?
What objective evidence can you demonstrate that your deity is real?
John
I'm open to evidence first, and belief comes second.
My guess is you have no evidence to give me?
Well clearly you aren't open to evidence first, if I'm currently going over evidence that shows belief must come first, and you're still stuck asking for it backwards. Could it be because you don't believe me?
John
So you can't give me evidence, unless I believe in a God?
*00P5*
You have not put even the slightest bit of evidence out there for your original assertion.
"You can't have evidence until you believe."
All you have done is blow a bunch of hot air, make a bunch of unfounded assertions and pretend you are being some sort of intellectual about the whole thing.
You have not defined what you mean by belief, obviously you are using the word differently than it is intended. You cite bullshit about recognizing objects that has nothing to do with belief. You assert scientists, all of them, are bias for political reasons. Bullshit bullshit and more bullshit. You would not know a scientific fact if it jumped up and bit you on the ass.
The whole purpose of the scientific method is to eliminate belief. Your hypothesis either holds water or it does not. What you think about it does not matter at all when it comes to testing. The only way to FUCK UP a scientific inquiry is to BELIEVE first and then try to support that belief.... JUST LIKE THE FRIGGING CREATIONISTS .... OR THE OTHER DWEEBS THAT WANT TO BELIEVE IN THEOLOGIES.
FACT: No one needs to hold anything as true to test it. No one needs to believe something or anything to simply see if it is true or not. "What if this is true?" is a significant enough question to get the ball rolling. "I wonder what would happen if I did this?" Another great question. "I think this might be true." falls significantly below belief though it is enough for a scientist to begin studying. Believing first is putting the cart before the horse. That's just not how it is done. Even when belief is involved any scientist worth his degree, knows how to suspend that belief during an experiment, The facts are the facts, something you obviously have not yet learned. Perhaps if you read another 20 articles you will catch on.
Pages