Re: REVIEW: _Religious_


"Bart Goddard" <goddardbe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns9B18C326ADAACgoddardbenetscapenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Alex W." <ingilt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:6j31j9F117u4U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:


I find it no more likely that I'll find Jehovah when I die than that
I'll find I am reincarnated.

And your opinion here carries weight why?

Because like you (or me, or Misc, or Bernie) he's a regular in good
standing in this august group of cigar smokers, with as much right to
shoot the breeze, talk sense or rubbish, or indulge in cheesy fish
puns as everyone else.

That's not what I mean. It was a serious question. "I find it..."
Really? What did you do to find that. Here we are discussing
an issue in which my opponents' chief argument is that I lack
evidence for my side. So where is the evidence for a statement
like the one above. Did he get a big book that told him?
Where did the analysis come from, from which he drew this
probability model? Come on, there must be SOME basis for
this opinion.

"I find it" is the expression of a personal opinion, no more. I have no
idea what the basis for his view is.



We've been here before, haven't we?
By today's standards, Bibilical accounts are not evidence but hearsay.

Says who? The people who already think it's hearsay? Biblical
accounts are the best preserved accounts we have of that time.
It's better historical evidence than we have for _anything else_.

..... anything else other than anything else to do with the running of the
Roman Empire down to individual household accounts. We know an amazing lot
about life in the Empire at that precise time; the Romans were inveterate
keepers of records and commemorators of notable events. And yet, no record
of the arrest, trial, conviction or execution of Jesus exists. The Bible
tells us that this was a cause célèbre, an event of major political unrest
for the province. The highest authorities, both Jewish and Roman, were
involved. But no records exist. That worries me.

Moreover, the gospels are not unproblematic. We know that the authors
cribbed from each other's texts; this makes their accounts inherently less
reliable, just as witness statements are given less weight in court if they
have had a chance to compare their stories. We also know that at least one
gospel (Q) is missing, presumed lost -- so what else could be out there that
we haven't seen yet?

Beyond that, I distrust mere witness statements on principle. Few things
are more unreliable than human memory, as any cop trying to correlate human
testimony will be able to tell you. What is lacking is corroborating
evidence. No burial site, no external documents, no inscriptions, nothing.



Finally, and I mean that, turn your own arguments on yourself.
Through the history of mankind, almost all men at all times have
believed in a spiritual world. What is the evolutionary point
of developing a tendency like that? Especially if it's as
harmful to the species as you assert?

It is a need hard-wired into our minds. Our brains function by being
compulsive story-telling devices. Our every action and thought is a
narrative, and singular, unexplained or inexplicable events contravene
this mode. We absolutely *must* have something, anything to satisfy
that need to create a narrative around the rising of the sun or the
bolt of lightning -- and in the absence of a natural explanation, we
will happily invent one.

Which still avoids the question: What is the evolutionary advantage
of being hard-wired like that? Especially since you seem to think
that it's an actual detriment?

It's not a detriment per se. It is a tool. It is a particular mode of
operation, with advantages and drawbacks. It is the vehicle by which our
two chief weapons work: curiosity and imagination. Spirituality falls in
line with these urges: it is an attempt to explore and explain both the
inner world of the human spirit and condition, and the outer world of the
unvierse around us.

Taking that one step further, I am quite sure that it won't have been long
before early man recognised the value of faith as a powerful tool for social
control and the transmission of valuable knowledge.




Besides the evidence we
find "inside" the creation, we also have tons of events, miracles,
and the guidence of the wisest men that point to God's existence.

Which, oddly enough, is a statement that may be applied to every
single religion. It is therefore not suitable for defending one
specific faith.

Not "oddly enough", you're just shifting about. The argument
for the existance of God is different from the argument about
which religion is correct.

For every miracle you point at as evidence of God's existence, a mullah will
be able to do the same to demonstrate the existence of Allah. By itself, a
miracle does not prove which religion is correct because as evidence it is
neutral. If a baby falls out of a tenth-floor window and survives, we call
it a miracle -- but we ascribe it to the deity we happen to believe in
ourselves. So how can miracles "prove" the existence of God in principle?

(not to mention that the vast majority of miracles, once examined, turn out
to be no more than statistical oddities).





Now, swamped with this evidence that at least hints there is
something besides the material world, you make the assumption,
based on NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, that there is no God. See how
weak your arguments are?

That is an appeal to negative proof -- a logical fallacy, as you well
know. As it applies equally to the affirmative atheist declaration and
to the profession of faith, it is useless to either side.

I'm not appealling to it, I'm just showing you that your
foundation is based on fewer facts than mine. You don't even
realize the double-standard you try to apply.

Well, we do have a problem here. I make a negative statement: there is no
god. You make a positive assertion: there is a god. Accepting that I
cannot prove a negative beyond statistical improbability, the only way to
resolve this is for you to prove your claim since that logically
permissible.




However, one may legitimately use negative evidence to argue that it
is statistically highly improbable

_That_ is total rubbish. You can't argue probability without a
model. And you can't have a model when there is only one
experiement. You CAN argue thusly, but it sure ain't legitimate.

Applying the same test to 1,000 subjects will allow me to compute the
probability of an outcome for test subject 1,001. If I examine claims for
the existence of a divine entity from Aphrodite to Zeus and come up empty,
divine entity Yahweh is statistically likely to prove similarly elusive.





May I also point out that being swamped with evidence "that at least
hints there is something besides the material world" is not exactly
convincing?

Are you under the delusion that I'm trying to convince you?
Dispell that. I'm just gainsaying your repeated claim that
there's "no evidence". There is evidence. Maybe not proof,
but certainly evidence.

Which I fail to find. Taking your comment in a slightly wider context, I
have yet to see evidence suggesting that there are ghosts, vampires, demons
or other "extra-material" entities. There is not even any physical,
reproducible and testable evidence for the existence of the human soul,
something which I find personally quite disappointing (to say the least).



.

Relevant Pages

  • Catapuss: " But unicorns are famously shy" - watch him run from his words by changing the subje
    ... " People have invented thousands of over history - they all have one thing in common: none of them ever appear to mankind and prove their existence and powers. ... Does Catapuss think because a myth or story exists that people have to believe in it or accept its phony assumptions that are convenient explanations for lack of evidence? ... Are you going to assume the god exists, ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • You made a totally ineffective reply - the lying was just too obvious.
    ... " People have invented thousands of over history - they all have one thing in common: none of them ever appear to mankind and prove their existence and powers. ... Does Catapuss think because a myth or story exists that people have to believe in it or accept its phony assumptions that are convenient explanations for lack of evidence? ... Are you going to assume the god exists, ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... >>> if you accept the existence of God, ... >> Indirect evidence which helps infer the existence of God? ... >>> have throughout recorded history, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Catapuss: " But unicorns are famously shy" - watch him run from his words by changing the s
    ... Re: Catapuss: " But unicorns are famously shy" - watch him run from his words by changing the subject line ... " People have invented thousands of over history - they all have one thing in common: none of them ever appear to mankind and prove their existence and powers. ... Does Catapuss think because a myth or story exists that people have to believe in it or accept its phony assumptions that are convenient explanations for lack of evidence? ... Are you going to assume the god exists, ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... >>> No. Does not the existence of our free will and conscious mind give ... >> established by science. ... why is this an argument in favour of there being a God? ... > Indirect evidence which helps infer the existence of God? ...
    (talk.origins)