The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by SL00b http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...rcent-of-brain "Though an alluring idea, the '10 percent myth' is so wrong it is almost laughable"

Yea, the phrase about it being "laughable" is strong language indeed. But it helps little to understand how they estimate it to be any different from 10% (although I didn't INSIST on 10% either).
But thanks for the link, I like such stuff very much.

And my point is confirmed in the end of its article:

Ultimately, it's not that we use 10 percent of our brains, merely that we only understand about 10 percent of how it functions.

But then reason a bit more about the above. If we ONLY UNDERSTAND BUT 10% OF HOW IT FUNCTIONS, then how can we ever be able to estimate that it is 10% or 20% or 100% of our brain abilities that we humans are using today??

I don't want to "catch" anybody here on the exact words one used, though. It remain certain that we know VERY LITTLE about the matter. That was the point.

Originally Posted by kostya Do you, though? Religion is the body of one's beliefs, as is not so difficult to define. Atheism absolutely qualifies as such, as they only "believe" there is no God, and that despite vast evidence to the contrary. Since both are but "beliefs", there is no difference among them as to the quality. It's fine you rule atheism out from "religions", but that's only you. So who's "intellectually lazy" as in using "ready" definitions without trying to understand what these actually imply ?

Didn't I go over this before? The issue is not belief in and of itself. The issue is what constitutes justified belief.

There is no good evidence for god, because no evidence unequivocally leads to the conclusion that god must exist, most especially not any particular god. You can insert an infinite number of hypothetical entities that the "evidence" equally supports. (And this gets back some to the underdetermination of theory that I mentioned before.) And concluding God doesn't actually answer any questions in an intelligible fashion. "Q: How did the universe begin (if it had a beginning)? A: God did it." That's not an answer. It doesn't go anywhere, it doesn't add to our understanding of anything.

Originally Posted by kostya Do you, though? Religion is the body of one's beliefs, as is not so difficult to define. Atheism absolutely qualifies as such, as they only "believe" there is no God, and that despite vast evidence to the contrary. Since both are but "beliefs", there is no difference among them as to the quality. It's fine you rule atheism out from "religions", but that's only you. So who's "intellectually lazy" as in using "ready" definitions without trying to understand what these actually imply ?

Religion is the body of one's beliefs related to supernatural creation of life and the universe only, and atheism is the lack of any beliefs about supernatural creation of live and the universe, and therefore the terms are completely exclusive of each other. You could have learned how wrong you are pretty quickly, you're only sitting in front of the most complete and accessible repository of human knowledge ever assembled.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

I guess you're bored of showing off your ignorance of biology and have moved on to philosophy?

Originally Posted by kostya Yea, the phrase about it being "laughable" is strong language indeed. But it helps little to understand how they estimate it to be any different from 10% (although I didn't INSIST on 10% either). But thanks for the link, I like such stuff very much. And my point is confirmed in the end of its article: But then reason a bit more about the above. If we ONLY UNDERSTAND BUT 10% OF HOW IT FUNCTIONS, then how can we ever be able to estimate that it is 10% or 20% or 100% of our brain abilities that we humans are using today?? I don't want to "catch" anybody here on the exact words one used, though. It remain certain that we know VERY LITTLE about the matter. That was the point.

Didn't you read the article? We know we're using it all because we can see the energy being consumed by the brain in scans and verify we're using pretty much all of it, just not all at the same time.

Originally Posted by SL00b Religion is the body of one's beliefs related to supernatural creation of life and the universe only, and atheism is the lack of any beliefs about supernatural creation of live and the universe, and therefore the terms are completely exclusive of each other. You could have learned how wrong you are pretty quickly, you're only sitting in front of the most complete and accessible repository of human knowledge ever assembled. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism I guess you're bored of showing off your ignorance of biology and have moved on to philosophy?

I don't think it's that useful to argue definitions. The key point is to understand what he means equating atheism and religious belief. Which seems to be 1) that there is evidence for God and, contradictory, 2) atheism and religion are on equal footing because the evidence can't support either position, so neither has the claim to rationality.

Originally Posted by SL00b atheism is the lack of any beliefs about supernatural creation of live and the universe

Are you sure about this part? Judging by what most "atheists" say, atheism is "belief that there are NO gods or supernatural powers in this universe", which isn't the same thing as "lack of belief". "Lack of belief" could be a lack of knowledge. In other words, if you haven't ever heard about fairies (example), you have no opinion about them. I.e. you don't believe that they exist, but you don't believe that they don't exist - you simply have no opinion yet, because you don't even know the concept.

Originally Posted by reed9 2) atheism and religion are on equal footing because the evidence can't support either position, so neither has the claim to rationality.

Which is called agnosticism.

Originally Posted by reed9 There is no good evidence for god, because no evidence unequivocally leads to the conclusion that god must exist, most especially not any particular god. You can insert an infinite number of hypothetical entities that the "evidence" equally supports. (And this gets back some to the underdetermination of theory that I mentioned before.) And concluding God doesn't actually any questions in an intelligible fashion. "Q: How did the universe begin (if it had a beginning)? A: God did it." That's not an answer. It doesn't go anywhere, it doesn't add to our understanding of anything.

But don't you see how much all the above is just a matter of personal interpretation??

"No good evidence" -- for them who're not satisfied with the existing one. And I don't how many these are, as according to one research 90% of those questioned admitted to the existence of superior powers in this form or another.
Now I DON'T KNOW if it is 90% or only 10% and let's not quarrel over this at least, please. My only point is, there's no unity over that, which some small group of smarties took it upon them to declare in the name of all humankind.

And religions doesn't take it upon itself to show how exactly everything happened. It points to the cause of all things and moral/spiritual issues related.

This is a pretty old issue, too, on which VERY MUCH has been said and of which you folks are mentioning only what fits your views.
It's OK, it's fine, but don't pretend these to be truth in the last reading. There are other scientists and other points of view and you need not pretend you don't understand that.

Originally Posted by reed9 There is no good evidence for god

I don't think so. There is no evidence at all for existence of a god, not only no good evidence.

Originally Posted by kostya But don't you see how much all the above is just a matter of personal interpretation??

Nope, this is about standards of evidence, not personal interpretation of what makes good evidence. These are not haphazard or arbitrary rules.

"No good evidence" -- for them who're not satisfied with the existing one. And I don't how many these are, as according to one research 90% of those questioned admitted to the existence of superior powers in this form or another. Now I DON'T KNOW if it is 90% or only 10% and let's not quarrel over this at least, please. My only point is, there's no unity over that, which some small group of smarties took it upon them to declare in the name of all humankind.

The absolute number or percentage is immaterial. I'll grant that the overwhelming majority of people believe in some sort of deity or the supernatural. As an argument, it doesn't get you anywhere, being an example of a logical fallacy, the argument from popularity.

And religions doesn't take it upon itself to show how exactly everything happened. It points to the cause of all things and moral/spiritual issues related.

You're the one arguing religion makes empirical truth claims about the world, not me.

This is a pretty old issue, too, on which VERY MUCH has been said and of which you folks are mentioning only what fits your views. It's OK, it's fine, but don't pretend these to be truth in the last reading. There are other scientists and other points of view and you need not pretend you don't understand that.

As Bertrand Russell said, "(1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) thet when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment."

The overwhelming consensus of scientists is that evolution is true. For those who disagree, they need to offer actual evidence and proof that refute some key aspect of evolution. What we have instead are people offering straw men and other fallacious arguments or purporting to refute the evidence through armchair philosophizing. In other words, people need to do actual science that meets accepted scientific standards. Show me a genuine mammal fossil from the pre-cambrian period, and you'll have something. Arguments about how evolution just doesn't make sense to you will always fall flat.

Originally Posted by reed9 I don't think it's that useful to argue definitions. The key point is to understand what he means equating atheism and religious belief. Which seems to be 1) that there is evidence for God and, contradictory, 2) atheism and religion are on equal footing because the evidence can't support either position, so neither has the claim to rationality.

And the problem is that the notion of atheism requiring proof is a fallacy. The statement, "There is a god," is a positive statement that requires proof, and until such proof is substantiated, "there is no god" is a valid, rational conclusion from the available evidence (or sheer lack thereof).

The burden of proof is on the positive statement, because you cannot logically prove the negative. For example, I can offer proof that there are keys in my pocket, but you cannot absolutely substantiate that there are NO keys in my pocket... especially if I start shifting the goalposts, as theists tend to do, by mucking around with my personal definition of "keys.". "The keys are invisible." "The keys are microscopic." "The keys are a metaphor which stand for tools for unlocking human understanding." Etc.

Originally Posted by SigTerm Are you sure about this part? Judging by what most "atheists" say, atheism is "belief that there are NO gods or supernatural powers in this universe", which isn't the same thing as "lack of belief". "Lack of belief" could be a lack of knowledge. In other words, if you haven't ever heard about fairies (example), you have no opinion about them. I.e. you don't believe that they exist, but you don't believe that they don't exist - you simply have no opinion yet, because you don't even know the concept. Which is called agnosticism.

You're conflating positive/negative, strong/weak, or hard/soft atheism (pick your favorite). The first says, "There are no gods," and the second says, "None of the gods yet proposed exist." The two statements are fundamentally different, but both are atheist statements.

Originally Posted by kostya "No good evidence" -- for them who're not satisfied with the existing one. And I don't how many these are, as according to one research 90% of those questioned admitted to the existence of superior powers in this form or another. Now I DON'T KNOW if it is 90% or only 10% and let's not quarrel over this at least, please. My only point is, there's no unity over that, which some small group of smarties took it upon them to declare in the name of all humankind.

Was that the same source that told you we only use 10% of our brains?

Also... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Originally Posted by SL00b And the problem is that the notion of atheism requiring proof is a fallacy. The statement, "There is a god," is a positive statement that requires proof, and until such proof is substantiated, "there is no god" is a valid, rational conclusion from the available evidence (or sheer lack thereof). The burden of proof is on the positive statement, because you cannot logically prove the negative. For example, I can offer proof that there are keys in my pocket, but you cannot absolutely substantiate that there are NO keys in my pocket... especially if I start shifting the goalposts, as theists tend to do, by mucking around with my personal definition of "keys.". "The keys are invisible." "The keys are microscopic." "The keys are a metaphor which stand for tools for unlocking human understanding." Etc.

Oh, absolutely. That is all true. I just don't like getting caught up arguing semantics and definitions over substance. This is exactly the sort of response that I think is more useful. Rather than criticizing how someone uses (or misuses) the word atheist, better to explain why it doesn't follow that atheism is analogous to religious belief.

Originally Posted by reed9 Nope, this is about standards of evidence, not personal interpretation of what makes good evidence.

Thanks for the link, so that I could base my argument on something you could recognize as based on the sources you accept.
And, interestingly enough, this source is very much biased against religious people, as you could no doubt notice.

Of course, it would disqualify prayer from being any evidence without really knowing what real prayer is.

But this example is truly outstanding:

Testability: ...This [evolution and transitional species] was successfully tested when we discovered Tiktaalik, as predicted

Then as one follows the link to "Tiktallik" he easily sees what it actually is:

While it may be that neither is ancestor to any living animal, they serve as evidence that intermediates between very different types of vertebrates did once exist.

Now a "transitional link" is NOT just an "intermediate between very different types of vertebrates". It would be such "intermediate" as would show signs of being "transitional" form one species to another. For example, not just being able to walk on its fins (there are fishes known to do that yet still remain fishes), but having their fins partly transformed into what would later, when completed, become a reptile's leg.
...There is nothing of the kind in that article about Tiktaalik, although a lot of speculation that it "could be" this and that and "could later develop" this or that. Frankly, suggesting what it "could later develop" into is at least not enough to call it a "transitional species".

And your highly reliable source points to it as a "proof to evolution and transitional" link. Are all your sources like this?
But without being exact over the point of transitional species one can easily qualify ALL existing species and classes as "transitional" between one another.

This is NOT how C.Darwin viewed these things, but we can help mr. Darwin a bit, can we not ?

I don't actually understand why they are so shy in their efforts to help mr. Darwin. They could easily do with correcting the adopted classification into something, which would right away declare species to be "transitional" between one another.
There's no force can forbid them do it as they are "vast majority" by your account of it.

Originally Posted by kostya Thanks for the link, so that I could base my argument on something you could recognize as based on the sources you accept. And, interestingly enough, this source is very much biased against religious people, as you could no doubt notice. Of course, it would disqualify prayer from being any evidence without really knowing what real prayer is.

This is exactly the kind of goalpost shift I referenced in my last post, so thanks. What "real prayer" could you be referring to?

On the topic of testability, here's an example of the power of prayer being tested, and its unfortunate results: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4681771.stm