Anti-Christian Bigotry?

[Bonam]

For example, assuming the individual functions in one thing, but what about the assumption that the Drake Equation has any validity whatsoever, what evidence is that based on?

What factors is it missing or failing to account for?

[Bonam]

I see the difference in theory but I am having trouble seeing a difference in practice.

Then perhaps you should work on that until you gain some understanding of the difference. In case you didn't notice, the last few dozen pages of this thread have primarily been about the distinction between religious thought and rational thought. I really can't help you if, like AW, you refuse to see the distinction.

[eyeball]

what about the assumption that the Drake Equation has any validity whatsoever, what evidence is that based on?

If you were referring to a mathematical mistake, I'm sure it would have been corrected by now.

Otherwise, the validity of the Drake Equation is based on the evidence that using an equation to describe and predict things that happen in the real physical world is often more effective than chicken bones or praying etc.

[GostHacked]

To think that this whole universe was made for us and us only seems like a waste really. We can't live in %99.999999999 of the universe, but it was created just for us?

If you go with evolution then the chances of life evolving somewhere else seem quite likely. If it happened, here, it can happen anywhere.

There are also as many galaxies in the universe as there are stars in our own galaxy. The number of possible life out there is quite high.

Heck we might even be aliens to this planet.

Astronomers have already detected earth like planets in other systems, and in a couple cases , there are indications of water and atmosphere on a few.

Water is more common than we think. The Moon and Mars has traces of it, Io (moon) is a ball of water ice.

http://www.space.com/20720-earth-like-alien-planets-discovery.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2260203/A-new-twin-planet-Scientists-announce-Earth-like-world--boosting-chances-search-alien-life.html

[DogOnPorch]

Io is a ball of sulfur. Europa is a shell of ice covering an ocean.

[Mighty AC]

Comparing evidence of a god to your fictional evidence of storks delivering babies just shows an ignorance and inability to actually address the issue at hand.

In my example, John wanted to support his belief that storks deliver babies. John sees the correlation between stork populations and birthrates as evidence that storks deliver babies. According to your own explanations of how evidence works John's belief in baby delivering storks is now evidence based. Would you agree?

[GostHacked]

Io is a ball of sulfur. Europa is a shell of ice covering an ocean.

My mistake. But my point stands.

[carepov]

What factors is it missing or failing to account for?

It may be missing an unknown factor.

If you were referring to a mathematical mistake, I'm sure it would have been corrected by now.

Otherwise, the validity of the Drake Equation is based on the evidence that using an equation to describe and predict things that happen in the real physical world is often more effective than chicken bones or praying etc.

The Drake equation is mathematically meaningless. It is a contemplative tool. It is also a tool used to ensure abundant funding for programs like the SETI.

If a person believes in ETs it is a leap of faith - whether or not the Drake equation was used.

[carepov]

Then perhaps you should work on that until you gain some understanding of the difference. In case you didn't notice, the last few dozen pages of this thread have primarily been about the distinction between religious thought and rational thought. I really can't help you if, like AW, you refuse to see the distinction.

Again, I see and understand the diference, but in some cases (not all) the difference is meaningless.

For example:

"I beleive in ETs"

"I think that there is a 99.999% chance that ETs exist because the Drake equation says so"

Yes different, but both are unscientific leaps of faith.

[GostHacked]

It may be missing an unknown factor.

The Drake equation is mathematically meaningless. It is a contemplative tool. It is also a tool used to ensure abundant funding for programs like the SETI.

If a person believes in ETs it is a leap of faith - whether or not the Drake equation was used.

I have faith we will find ET before God. By hypothetical numbers alone on both sides of the argument, we do have a better chance of finding ET before we find conclusive evidence for God. The numbers seem to work in ET's favour. If ET is discovered, that could send many of the religious in a panic. Long standing ideas and notions would be shattered. We would no longer be alone in the universe. Then the question about god creating all this just for us is a false notion. Brains will literally break because they cannot cope with the notion of ET.

Now it could be twisted to say that God created multiple races. Universe could be a huge sandbox for him. God will never go away in many people's minds. But if we meet ET, then that number would drop noticeably.

If we accept that life did in fact evolve on this planet, then the chance of it happening again in this universe is more than zero. Even if that only means one other form of life, or more specifically intelligent life then it would still be equally amazing.

But in the time frame of this universe, many civilizations on other worlds could have come and gone. We've seen several on our own planet that have come and gone. Many leaving monuments behind indicating that someone was there.

[Bonam]

If a person believes in ETs it is a leap of faith - whether or not the Drake equation was used.

So basically you've chosen to disregard the prior several pages of discussion and baselessly make the claim that you wanted to make to begin with. Simply stating the claim with no supporting argument, and ignoring the distinctions that have been made by the people you are debating with.

[Guest American Woman]

In my example, John wanted to support his belief that storks deliver babies. John sees the correlation between stork populations and birthrates as evidence that storks deliver babies. According to your own explanations of how evidence works John's belief in baby delivering storks is now evidence based. Would you agree?

John is blind and believes that people are invisible. He wants to support his belief that people are invisible. John has learned that the human body is made up of cells. John has also learned that cells are invisible to the naked eye. John therefore concludes that the human body is invisible to the naked eye.

John's claim that people are invisible is based on logic. So your point is?

Edited October 16, 2013 by American Woman

[carepov]

Intellectually distracted would be how I'd put it and it can happen to anyone.

I think the huge amount of credibility that is afforded religion can serve us poorly as a society because it encourages so much wilful suspension of disbelief. If you can believe some religions, there's really not a whole lot to discourage people from believing in just about any super-naturalism they're told or feel is real without tangible physical evidence.

In a evolutionary context suspending disbelief seems like a very poor survival trait. I recall a friend who believed she could cure her cancer by employing some ancient ritual involving herbs and meditation... I look around the planet and see so many people and institutions behaving as if it's okay if we wreck this world because there is another better one awaiting us when we die.

It would be better I think if religion was a lot more private and not so glaringly public like a never ending political campaign. Like I said its a big distraction and being distracted is often a dangerous state to be in.

For every person distracted by their religion there is another one that, with the help of their religion, becomes more focussed on the things that matter (family, environment, etc..)

Really? People/institution destroy the environment because of their religion - this is a ridiculous claim.

In Canada religion is very private . IMO it become glaringly public when some anti-religious people campaign to stamp out all religion based on their belief that the world would be a better place without religion.

[GostHacked]

John is blind and believes that people are invisible. He wants to support his belief that people are invisible. John has learned that the human body is made up of cells. John has also learned that cells are invisible to the naked eye. John therefore concludes that the human body is invisible to the naked eye.

Well I can't say he is an idiot, but was pure ignorance based on what he knew at that time. It may have been logical at that time, but as we have gained more knowledge, things and views change.

John's claim that people are invisible is based on logic. So your point is?

Considering I can see people, then that logic is obviously not sound at all, even if you consider his ignorance during this time frame.

[Guest American Woman]

The point is that there is bad evidence and bad logic. So what does that prove? That there are flaws in both.

Certainly the fact that there is bad evidence isn't proof that all evidence of a god is bad evidence. 'Evidence of the existence of unicorns and storks is bad evidence and schizophrenics hear voices therefore all evidence that there is a god is bad evidence' is totally ignorant.

The fact remains that some people's belief in a god is based on evidence. The claim that religious people believe in a god without evidence is not a true statement. Some do base their belief on evidence.

[BubberMiley]

Certainly the fact that there is bad evidence isn't proof that all evidence of a god is bad evidence.

Nope, but the fact that people who claim there is evidence of God but, when asked, don't provide that evidence is evidence of bad evidence.

[GostHacked]

Bad evidence? How about an utter lack of evidence. I have been told the earth is evidence. But not sure why it would be evidence.

Maybe all the other planets and stars in our universe were trial runs. This was his only success. We should applaud this achievement, but not forget all the other failures.

[Guest American Woman]

Bad evidence? How about an utter lack of evidence.

As I've said repeatedly, if you want to learn about all of the evidence that people claim, you will have to read books, read articles, talk to people, listen to people. All of the evidence that people claim is not something that can be condensed on a web board in one post nor is it something you can learn about in five minutes. It would take a commitment and desire to learn on your part. You have no such desire? Fine. But dismissing it all simply because you have no interest in it doesn't erase it. Furthermore, such a mindset is just the opposite side of the coin. As I've said. Which has been my point all along.

We've got those who look down on anyone who doesn't believe as they do on both sides of the issue. Those who believe and those who don't believe. Those who smugly dismiss anyone's beliefs that don't match their own. Religious or non-religious, such people are basically the same.

Edited October 16, 2013 by American Woman

[Mighty AC]

John is blind and believes that people are invisible. He wants to support his belief that people are invisible. John has learned that the human body is made up of cells. John has also learned that cells are invisible to the naked eye. John therefore concludes that the human body is invisible to the naked eye.

John's claim that people are invisible is based on logic. So your point is?

You're making my point. Incomplete information or data used incorrectly is not evidence. Prior to gaining more information on the visibility of people the reasonable position for John to take would be that 'we do not know if people can be seen'. He can certainly hypothesize that people are invisible and seek to test it, but to claim that people are invisible is unsound. John's position becomes even more unreasonable if he still maintains that people are invisible as more evidence to the contrary is provided.

[BubberMiley]

Citations don't take long to provide. The only reason I can think of for not providing them is they are ridiculous.

I miss the coin analogy though. Two sides. No different. That was sweet.

[GostHacked]

But as you say, many don't even take the bible in every literary sense. So modern beliefs are drastically different from when this book was supposedly written. We have seen cults take the bible word for word. Even the contraindications. But even many of the religious agree that these people are complete kooks. So if this one book is the true word of god, then everything else and every other interpretation is false. That is using some logic there. But we have different versions. Not everyone sees this god in the same way. So there really is no universal single god for all of humanity. Different break off religions are using different 'logic'. All stand equally because they all still lack that empirical evidence that people demand when a stance is taken.

Even if there is only one true god, you will see the rise of a one world religion. Everything else would be false instantly. That should freak some people out.

In my view, so far all evidence proposed would not stand up to a trial by peers. Any peer, religious or other. And the challenge is not that hard to at least have one solid piece of evidence that is tangible.

And no they are not the same at all. I am not that confident to say I have and know the answer to that question. You on the other hand are convinced you know the answer.

[dre]

The fact remains that some people's belief in a god is based on evidence. The claim that religious people believe in a god without evidence is not a true statement. Some do base their belief on evidence.

Only if you dumb down the definition of evidence to mean "anything that makes anyone believe in anything".

And theres no point in having a discussion around such a loose definition at all.

If you define it as emprical evidence that by its logical extension supports a certain conclusion, then now theres a degree of objectivity to it.

And if you do this... youll realized what the rest of the human race has known for centuries... That religion is based on faith not empirical evidence.

[Guest American Woman]

You're making my point. Incomplete information or data used incorrectly is not evidence. Prior to gaining more information on the visibility of people the reasonable position for John to take would be that 'we do not know if people can be seen'. He can certainly hypothesize that people are invisible and seek to test it, but to claim that people are invisible is unsound. John's position becomes even more unreasonable if he still maintains that people are invisible as more evidence to the contrary is provided.

Yet he based his decision on logic, so logic, as I've been saying, is not absolute; and so far I haven't seen you disprove the claims that people have re: the existence of a god. So far all I've seen you do is show bad evidence for other made-up claims.

Your claim that people believe in a god without evidence is a false statement, while it is a fact that some do base their belief on evidence.

[Guest American Woman]

In my view, so far all evidence proposed would not stand up to a trial by peers. Any peer, religious or other. And the challenge is not that hard to at least have one solid piece of evidence that is tangible.

The key words there are "in [my] view."

And no they are not the same at all.

They are exactly the same.

I am not that confident to say I have and know the answer to that question.

You seem to be confident enough to say no one's evidence is good evidence.

You on the other hand are convinced you know the answer.

That is flat out false. In fact, I've repeatedly said exactly the opposite. You might want to try reading what people have to say before you make such ignorant claims.

[dre]

while it is a fact that some do base their belief on evidence.

Only if you dumb down the definition of evidence to mean "anything that makes anyone believe in anything".

And theres no point in having a discussion around such a loose definition at all.

If you define it as empirical evidence that by its logical extension supports a certain conclusion, then now theres a degree of objectivity to it.

And if you do this... youll realized what the rest of the human race has known for centuries... That religion is based on faith not empirical evidence.

Edited October 16, 2013 by dre