J
Jelrak_TB
Guest
Must you take away all the toys…?
- Status
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Ummm, what.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
How Mormon.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
A paper I read in a biology course presented the idea that altruism evolved because it can benefit a society. It then went on to claim that religious minded people are more altruistic than atheists. Seriously. I had the assignment to critique the paper, and obviously, made the point that there are altruistic atheists, and further, what allele, or alleles, have been determined to be the altruistic allele. (None.)What part of this is explained by “evolutionary psychology”?
Natural selection, in this case, is thwarted by the fact that…well, this good behavior is selectively…destroyed.
This action seems to actually CONTRAVENE this theory of evolutionary psychology, don’t you think?
My take away from that is that sometimes people will publish anything just to say they are published.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Well shoot, I thought the thread had evolved into sharing riddles, the answer being that the coin landed on edge and stayed balanced there.
Otherwise, I think something is violated to pick one and not the other, as this article says, “one may be either skeptical of BOTH claims or ambivalent of BOTH claims.” I don’t see option C, to be skeptical or ambivalent about one claim but not the other.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
I wonder if it is rare, or perhaps unprecedented for a thread on the subject of atheism to reach the magic 1000 post mark? Perhaps Mr. Hilbert might know, and tell us. Not that we’re anywhere near that yet, but it would be kind of cool. Of course it would depend on our decorum and Mr. Hilbert’s continued good will and patience.
Not, of course that it matters. Nothing matters, after all. And the only way we can be sure Mr. Hilbert exists is if he shuts down the thread. Perhaps that is not even sufficient proof because once the thread is shut down we will be unable to post upon it, which could mean it is a random meaningless artifact.
Not, of course that it matters. Nothing matters, after all. And the only way we can be sure Mr. Hilbert exists is if he shuts down the thread. Perhaps that is not even sufficient proof because once the thread is shut down we will be unable to post upon it, which could mean it is a random meaningless artifact.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
If I converted to LDS, and ultimately became my own, little g god, how could I be sure that I exist?
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Sometimes Mr. Hilbert deletes entire threads. Leaving no evidence that the conversation took place at all, making any claim that it did, anecdotal. It may or may not be taking place now, as we type, if in the future it becomes nothing.I wonder if it is rare, or perhaps unprecedented for a thread on the subject of atheism to reach the magic 1000 post mark? Perhaps Mr. Hilbert might know, and tell us. Not that we’re anywhere near that yet, but it would be kind of cool. Of course it would depend on our decorum and Mr. Hilbert’s continued good will and patience.
Not, of course that it matters. Nothing matters, after all. And the only way we can be sure Mr. Hilbert exists is if he shuts down the thread. Perhaps that is not even sufficient proof because once the thread is shut down we will be unable to post upon it, which could mean it is a random meaningless artifact.
Nihilism is fun!
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
You would feel your existence is true, in your heart.If I converted to LDS, and ultimately became my own, little g god, how could I be sure that I exist?
F
Faithdancer
Guest
If he were secretly a Calvinist, he couldn’t be sure even then.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Indeed, it truly boggles the mind.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
I read where some researchers got 30,000 bucks or so to do a study on whether or not chickens feel more comfortable around humans with symmetrical faces. They do. Of course, they feel least comfortable around humans with meat cleavers or axes in their hands.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Rebecca’s right, it lands on edge! No, wait, the flies carry it off before it lands! It never landed! No, wait, it never really existed in the first place, it was just a mental construct coin! No, wait…
J
Jelrak_TB
Guest
It was a chocolate coin and I ate it mid-air…
M
MrEmpiricism
Guest
Do you seriously all not understand that rejecting a claim is NOT the same as asserting the opposite of the claim?
M
MrEmpiricism
Guest
Of course one can accept the claim, the article is explaining the misunderstanding people seem to have surrounding rejecting claims, i.e. if there are two possible outcomes and one rejects A then they must accept B. That is simply incorrect. Let me explain using a different example, the judicial system. I am going to use Scottish verdicts as they make it easier to understand and the verdict of “not proven”…
"Not proven is a verdict available to a court in Scotland. As with other judicial systems, the burden to prove guilt rests with the prosecution.
Under Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts: one of conviction (“guilty”) and two of acquittal (“not proven” and “not guilty”).[1][2]
Historically, the two verdicts available to Scots juries were that the case had been “proven” or “not proven”. However in a dramatic case in 1728 the jury asserted “its ancient right” to bring in a “not guilty” verdict even when the facts of the case were proven (see jury nullification). As the “not guilty” verdict gained wide acceptance amongst Scots juries, Scots began to use “not guilty” in cases where the jury felt the “not proven” verdict did not adequately express the innocence of the person on trial. Shrewd defence then further encouraged this interpretation in order to persuade juries unwilling to bring in a “not guilty” verdict that the “not proven” could be brought in as a lesser or “third verdict”.
The result is the modern perception that the “not proven” verdict is an acquittal used when the judge or jury does not have enough evidence to convict but is not sufficiently convinced of the accused person’s innocence to bring in a “not guilty” verdict. Essentially, the judge or jury is unconvinced that the suspect is innocent, but has insufficient evidence to the contrary."
So in court there are two possible circumstances…
The defendant is guilty
The defendant is not guilty
The claim is the defendant is guilty, if there is not sufficient evidence for one to accept that claim then they can reject it without accepting the defendant is innocent (which is the opposite of the claim). Just like if someone is throws a coin of a cliff then claims it must be showing tails, given I do not have sufficient evidence to evaluate the claim I can reject it without believing the coin is showing a heads.
It really is important that people understand this concept as it is a basic principle, yet critical component, of rational thinking.
Do the thought experiment yourself. I have just thrown a coin out my window I have no idea what side is landed on but I am going to assert based on nothing but a guess that it is showing heads. Do you accept my claim that it is 100% definitely showing heads? (Clearly the answer has to be no), does that mean you are claiming it is 100% definitely showing tails?
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
I can assure you I exist. But just to be sure, I’ll pour my morning coffee on myself.I wonder if it is rare, or perhaps unprecedented for a thread on the subject of atheism to reach the magic 1000 post mark? Perhaps Mr. Hilbert might know, and tell us. Not that we’re anywhere near that yet, but it would be kind of cool. Of course it would depend on our decorum and Mr. Hilbert’s continued good will and patience.
Not, of course that it matters. Nothing matters, after all. And the only way we can be sure Mr. Hilbert exists is if he shuts down the thread. Perhaps that is not even sufficient proof because once the thread is shut down we will be unable to post upon it, which could mean it is a random meaningless artifact.
(screaming).
Yep, I exist.
Anyway, the 1000 post mark isn’t my rule, it’s a general forum rule. You guys could go on to 10,000 posts if it were up to me.
Atheism threads were just recently re-opened, so I am giving folks a little extra rope and not stepping in too much. Just stay within the posting rules, and post like responsible adults and I won’t exist.
E
estesbob
Guest
I don’t see any gaps. I say perfectly ordered universe, so perfectly ordered that it can only be the result of design. Well actually I do see a gap-I see a huge gap for those who claim there is no God and that is the Gap that they no explanation for how they even exist or the universe even exists
I think the major problem with atheism is that it adherents are so narrowly focused on the" how "that.they never consider the "why"and the “who”.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Because when there are only 2 options, logic dictates that in rejecting one, you accept the other.
#logic
P
PRmerger
Guest
Oh, but I cleverly circumvented that option by saying it had landed flat on my palm.
- Status