I think it shows a lot about the atheist mindset that I was not allowed to define my faith which is the purpose of this thread, without receiving their sanctimonious self righteous interrogation, this thread was made to express...not to be judged and criticized.
Look how they drew upon me like vultures, all of them trying to get a bite.
I felt like I did last Saturday when it was me with my Green Eldrazi deck vs. my brother and our friend, who were equipped with pure white and a blue/black respectively.
I think they should be banned from the thread and I should be able to speak freely about my faith.
Being an Atheist is a perfectly acceptable faith (well, technically, it's the state of lacking faith). This thread is asking posters to define their faith. We are simply asking you do so, because we aren't really understanding your reasoning. I'm not trying to troll you, I genuinely want to know why you believe what you do about god. I'm trying to understand other people's decisions and beliefs, and figure out why they believe what they do. Also, this is a debate forum. Debating doesn't really work if you are unwilling to support your position in a coherent manner.
This is not a thread for debating ideas, but for expressing them.
Maybe if you make a thread for that purpose I will join, make a good opening statement and maybe I will find it worth my time.
Otherwise, you are abusing the purpose of the OP, please stop doing so.
This is not a thread for debating ideas, but for expressing them.
Maybe if you make a thread for that purpose I will join, make a good opening statement and maybe I will find it worth my time.
Otherwise, you are abusing the purpose of the OP, please stop doing so.
Cool man, whatever. I was just trying to extract a more complete definition of your faith from you. That's all I was trying to do, but you just clammed up and started attacking and demeaning me. Despite the fact that you asked for questions in your very first post of this thread. Whatever dude. If you really don't want to talk about it, I'll back off.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
This is not a thread for debating ideas, but for expressing them.
Maybe if you make a thread for that purpose I will join, make a good opening statement and maybe I will find it worth my time.
Otherwise, you are abusing the purpose of the OP, please stop doing so.
Cool man, whatever. I was just trying to extract a more complete definition of your faith from you. That's all I was trying to do, but you just clammed up and started attacking and demeaning me. Despite the fact that you asked for questions in your very first post of this thread. Whatever dude. If you really don't want to talk about it, I'll back off.
If you are offended by my opinions then maybe you should not participate in threads like this.
You refuse to answer my questions about definition, but demand I give you definition after definition, nothing is ever good enough for you.
The Logos is God, that is my definition, research it if you want to know.
I do not debate semantics, which is the basis of your sophistry.
Good day to you sir, and please do not interrupt me again while defining my faith, which I will reiterate, is the purpose of this thread.
If you would like to debate the existence of the Logos, make a thread.
Read translated Qu'ran 3 times and bible in entirety 3 times. Asked someone from college who speaks Arabic if the Qu'ran translation was good and they said yes.
My explanation of faith is people use religion to try to convince people of things that are not based in logic or science. Aka, you have a galileo who uses science to say the earth revolves around the sun and is on the chopping block for it. Personally I think religion is a crutch for people who want to argue for things being a certain way when they have no other reasoning. It's instilled in us from evolution and it isn't always a bad thing. If everyone purely relied on reason and logic all the time, society would develop too fast and become chaotic. You have to have religion in society for order. Historically when someone comes up with a good idea in history and someone in a position of power wants to maintain their position in power they always revert to something religious in nature as arguments against the good idea person.
Take hunter gatherers for instance. All those cave paintings on walls of men slaying wild beasts could have been religious reasoning from some hunter explaining why people should stay nomadic instead of staying in one area with early farming for instance.
This happens all the time in history. People resort to religion when they find their authority is question from politicians to any kind of person. The important thing is realizing this and realizing religion is an evolutionary defense mechanism in my opinion.
Read translated Qu'ran 3 times and bible in entirety 3 times. Asked someone from college who speaks Arabic if the Qu'ran translation was good and they said yes.
My explanation of faith is people use religion to try to convince people of things that are not based in logic or science. Aka, you have a galileo who uses science to say the earth revolves around the sun and is on the chopping block for it. Personally I think religion is a crutch for people who want to argue for things being a certain way when they have no other reasoning. It's instilled in us from evolution and it isn't always a bad thing. If everyone purely relied on reason and logic all the time, society would develop too fast and become chaotic. You have to have religion in society for order. Historically when someone comes up with a good idea in history and someone in a position of power wants to maintain their position in power they always revert to something religious in nature as arguments against the good idea person.
Take hunter gatherers for instance. All those cave paintings on walls of men slaying wild beasts could have been religious reasoning from some hunter explaining why people should stay nomadic instead of staying in one area with early farming for instance.
This happens all the time in history. People resort to religion when they find their authority is question from politicians to any kind of person. The important thing is realizing this and realizing religion is an evolutionary defense mechanism in my opinion.
A fine opinion if I ever saw one. Well done on figuring out what you believe.
At a minimum, at least you did not attack my beliefs to bolster your own, which is a clear sign of weakness.
Without the ALU family we humans could not have evolved from the primates, thus I hardly consider them to be junk.
That is like saying we could remove the first 100 years of Ford car research/design and development and still end up with a 2016 Ford Mustang GT.
The work of the Logos is not to poof things into existence fully formed, but grow them, similar to how a man cultivates his crops, making them ready through much work for a plentiful harvest.
That's just not true. Certainly there have been occasional instances in which one particular Alu sequence has been involved in a copy or transpose mutation of another section of DNA (the claim that humans could not have evolved from our primate ancestors without them is in need of a citation - a few specific mutation incidents don't make or break evolution), but that's not the same every single one of the million copies of Alu being useful or important. The great majority of them are junk even by the strictest of definitions.
I would not be me without my ALU family of sequences, they are not junk to me.
So you're saying that if we had a magic machine that could go into the DNA in every cell in your body, and edit out a single Alu sequence in an unexpressed segment of DNA in each one, you'd be able to tell, and it would change who you are?
Without the ALU family we humans could not have evolved from the primates, thus I hardly consider them to be junk.
That is like saying we could remove the first 100 years of Ford car research/design and development and still end up with a 2016 Ford Mustang GT.
The work of the Logos is not to poof things into existence fully formed, but grow them, similar to how a man cultivates his crops, making them ready through much work for a plentiful harvest.
That's just not true. Certainly there have been occasional instances in which one particular Alu sequence has been involved in a copy or transpose mutation of another section of DNA (the claim that humans could not have evolved from our primate ancestors without them is in need of a citation - a few specific mutation incidents don't make or break evolution), but that's not the same every single one of the million copies of Alu being useful or important. The great majority of them are junk even by the strictest of definitions.
I would not be me without my ALU family of sequences, they are not junk to me.
So you're saying that if we had a magic machine that could go into the DNA in every cell in your body, and edit out a single Alu sequence in an unexpressed segment of DNA in each one, you'd be able to tell, and it would change who you are?
I would no longer be me.
Imagine if I had lost my right hand in a freak accident as a small child.
Would I still win the competition for the person who jacked himself with his right hand the most time in September of 1997?
I would not be me without my ALU family of sequences, they are not junk to me.
"Junk DNA" just means it's non-coding, not that it serves no purpose, or never served a purpose. Similarly, calling a MTG deck "Junk" doesn't usually mean it's a bad deck, it means it's a WBG deck.
It may a poor label, but the thing that it's labeling does exist.
Atheism, as a form of skepticism, is the philosophical default position, it is theism that needs to be kept alive.
On the subject of junk DNA, recent research suggests it might not exist, or perhaps there is simply much less of it than thought. EDIT: to clarify, it is being suggested that a large section of non-coding DNA is not actually non-functional, it remains true that it does not contribute to coding of proteins however. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hidden-treasures-in-junk-dna/
Junk DNA, however, is not at all necessary for random mutations to occur.
As the famous atheist philosopher Richard Dawkins once said it is Darwinism that allows an atheist to be intellectually fulfilled.
That's not necessarily true though. And, more importantly, evolution is not necessary for the accuracy of atheism.
By the illusion of mindless random mutation the feeble mind of the atheist has broken Paley's watch to pieces.
1) The randomness of mutations is not relevant to the accuracy of evolutionary theory or it's ability to explain, without agency, the diversification of species.
2) Can you show practically that mutations occur mindfully and non-randomly?
Without Darwinism, atheism is as worthy for consideration as the existence of Peter Pan.
Even one of the greatest physicists agrees and stated quite succinctly;
"God does not play dice"
One of the greatest physicists, who was an atheist.
Einstein thought that the universe was probably entirely deterministic, not because of religion, but simply because he thought randomness didn't make sense in the context of everything science had discovered, however, recent discoveries i.e. quantum mechanics has made it make more sense, but he could still prove correct in his intuition.
Archythagoras, you also haven't answered my questions in the OP.
One in particular I'd like to know is:
What would change your mind?
I feel like this is the question most avoided that leads me to be dubious of how much of religious belief is genuine intellectual agreement and not societal idea-subscription.
That is such an excellent question. As an atheist, I'd be more than happy to believe in the existence of a god or gods as soon as the evidence for such belief rolls in. I don't believe in gods for the same reason I don't believe there's a elephant in my closet, and I'm quite happy to believe in gods and closet elephants once I have a reason to. My beliefs evolve all the time in light of new understanding and being able to change one's beliefs speaks to a person's courage and integrity. Rigid refusal to alter beliefs speaks to one's fanaticism. The opposite of faith is not doubt, it's certainty.
I feel sorry for those who are unwilling to change and grow in their belief system. On a spiritual level, it's like being dead inside - they blindly believe whatever dogma was spoonfed to them and deep down, they probably know they're wrong but they're invested in the lie and they're too scared to let it go. If there was a god out there, He/She/It certainly won't reward someone for blind faith or filling a collection plate.
That is such an excellent question. As an atheist, I'd be more than happy to believe in the existence of a god or gods as soon as the evidence for such belief rolls in. I don't believe in gods for the same reason I don't believe there's a elephant in my closet, and I'm quite happy to believe in gods and closet elephants once I have a reason to. My beliefs evolve all the time in light of new understanding and being able to change one's beliefs speaks to a person's courage and integrity. Rigid refusal to alter beliefs speaks to one's fanaticism. The opposite of faith is not doubt, it's certainty.
I feel sorry for those who are unwilling to change and grow in their belief system. On a spiritual level, it's like being dead inside - they blindly believe whatever dogma was spoonfed to them and deep down, they probably know they're wrong but they're invested in the lie and they're too scared to let it go. If there was a god out there, He/She/It certainly won't reward someone for blind faith or filling a collection plate.
That's the thing. My problem with religion isn't believing in the existence of God, etc. It's the fact that it relies on defining someone else's own beliefs for them. They're my beliefs, I'll believe whatever I want, regardless of what you think is true.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
Just spent over a week in the slammer guys, apparently the Nazi mods thought I was giving you'll such a violent verbal lashing they decided I must be punished before I bruised anyone's ego too badly.
But I have returned and we have God to thank for that. Nobody said anything worth my time to respond to but I will answer the dumb question from the OP.
What would make me change my mind?
Well, that's sort of like asking a mathematician(or me since I am a mathematician) what would make him change his mind that 2+2=4, you see, it would take a fundamental shift in the nature of his perception(i.e. going insane) or the way the universe operated for the mind to change at that level, same as what would make me change my mind about the work of the Logos.
I will check back when I have some more time to waste(maybe something more than sophistry will show up), I hope you all have a blessed day.
Just spent over a week in the slammer guys, apparently the Nazi mods thought I was giving you'll such a violent verbal lashing they decided I must be punished before I bruised anyone's ego too badly.
But I have returned and we have God to thank for that.
Nobody said anything worth my time to respond to but I will answer the dumb question from the OP.
What would make me change my mind?
That dumb question is establishing a honest standard of evidence. That dumb question is the basis of falsification, and important idea in the philosophy of science, especially in verifying new theories. That dumb question is important if you expect to defend your position.
Well, that's sort of like asking a mathematician(or me since I am a mathematician) what would make him change his mind that 2+2=4
2+2=4 is a result derived from essentially arbitrary axioms. Maths is system descriptive of quantities, it is not a system descriptive of real interactions, or properties of observable things, within the universe, only that it might be used to describe those things. Like English. The truths it rests upon is basic human logic in applying and manipulating definitions.
In that way, it's not comparable to the idea of a physical or para-physical capable of clearly observable physical interactions with a definitive state of existence. This is very much a synthetic claim which theoretically should be very easy to support, much like the existence of copper or the movement of air.
you see, it would take a fundamental shift in the nature of his perception(i.e. going insane) or the way the universe operated for the mind to change at that level, same as what would make me change my mind about the work of the Logos.
What I am getting is 'there is no feasibly reachable standard of evidence could possibly disprove it to me'. This seems to me however, absurd. I can think of no possible method of justification for a claim like the idea of god that is not realistically fallible and therefore provides a very simply method of disproof if such fallibility in action can be demonstrated, such as data from observations of things being used to support the idea shown to be inaccurately calculated or with incorrect identification of things, or a logical argument from observations shown to suffer a fallacy.
How do you account for such possibilities?
The idea of changing one's mind is an interesting thing.
It seems that when someone is told something absurd, ridiculous, and without any evidence, and the person believes it (often because they trust the person telling them the lie or believing it serves their own interests), these are the people who are the most unwilling to change their beliefs. If you show them evidence that proves them wrong, they continue pretending to believe the lie.
And the ones who learn something based on evidence and logic, despite the valid body of support for believing it, they are generally far more willing to adjust their beliefs in light of new evidence.
In short, if you have no reason to believe something, you are unwilling to stop believing it.
If you have great reasons to believe something, you're far more willing to alter those beliefs.
The idea of changing one's mind is an interesting thing.
It seems that when someone is told something absurd, ridiculous, and without any evidence, and the person believes it (often because they trust the person telling them the lie or believing it serves their own interests), these are the people who are the most unwilling to change their beliefs. If you show them evidence that proves them wrong, they continue pretending to believe the lie.
And the ones who learn something based on evidence and logic, despite the valid body of support for believing it, they are generally far more willing to adjust their beliefs in light of new evidence.
In short, if you have no reason to believe something, you are unwilling to stop believing it.
If you have great reasons to believe something, you're far more willing to alter those beliefs.
I would strongly suggest that you disabuse yourself of the notion that people who base their beliefs on science are more willing to change their views based on new evidences.
Also, your post is downright insulting towards people who believe in religion.
Well, that's sort of like asking a mathematician(or me since I am a mathematician) what would make him change his mind that 2+2=4, you see, it would take a fundamental shift in the nature of his perception(i.e. going insane) or the way the universe operated for the mind to change at that level, same as what would make me change my mind about the work of the Logos.
A fundamental shift in an actor's perception does not necessarily mean insanity.
As a mathematician you should realize that 2+2=4 is the result of arbitrary axioms in a specific system of numbers
Computers can easily produce different results for 2+2
public class Example
{
public static void Main()
{
Widget two = 2;
Console.WriteLine("results: {0} + {0} = {1}", two, two + two);
// output: "results: 2 + 2 = 1"
// slightly more serious:
Console.WriteLine("results: " + 2 + " + " + 2 + " = " + 2 + 2);
// output: "results: 2 + 2 = 22"
}
}
public struct Widget
{
private int value;
private Widget(int value) { this.value = value; }
public static implicit operator Widget(int i) { return new Widget(i); }
public static int operator +(Widget w1, Widget w2) { return w1.value / w2.value; }
public string toString() { this.value.toString(); }
}
The idea of changing one's mind is an interesting thing.
It seems that when someone is told something absurd, ridiculous, and without any evidence, and the person believes it (often because they trust the person telling them the lie or believing it serves their own interests), these are the people who are the most unwilling to change their beliefs. If you show them evidence that proves them wrong, they continue pretending to believe the lie.
And the ones who learn something based on evidence and logic, despite the valid body of support for believing it, they are generally far more willing to adjust their beliefs in light of new evidence.
In short, if you have no reason to believe something, you are unwilling to stop believing it.
If you have great reasons to believe something, you're far more willing to alter those beliefs.
I would strongly suggest that you disabuse yourself of the notion that people who base their beliefs on science are more willing to change their views based on new evidences.
Also, your post is downright insulting towards people who believe in religion.
I would strongly suggest that you disabuse yourself of the notion that your article provides a relevant objection. It's ironic that you quote a single authoritative study as iron-clad proof for your position when your article is all about how that exact mentality is delaying progress in science. But in any case, it's irrelevant. You're trying to refute the claim that people who base their beliefs on science are *more* likely to change their views based on new evidence than religious thinkers.
To simplify things, this is what just happened.
Person 1: Cheetahs are generally faster than sloths.
You: That's not true. Some cheetahs actually move slowly.
Person 1: But Cheetahs are still generally faster than sloths.
To be a real refutation, you'd need to compare how fast people adapt to new evidence basing their thinking on science vs. religion. One data point does not make a comparison.
Oh, and if you aren't basing your views on evidence then you aren't basing them on science to begin with.
I would strongly suggest that you disabuse yourself of the notion that your article provides a relevant objection. It's ironic that you quote a single authoritative study as iron-clad proof for your position when your article is all about how that exact mentality is delaying progress in science. But in any case, it's irrelevant. You're trying to refute the claim that people who base their beliefs on science are *more* likely to change their views based on new evidence than religious thinkers.
To simplify things, this is what just happened.
Person 1: Cheetahs are generally faster than sloths.
You: That's not true. Some cheetahs actually move slowly.
Person 1: But Cheetahs are still generally faster than sloths.
To be a real refutation, you'd need to compare how fast people adapt to new evidence basing their thinking on science vs. religion. One data point does not make a comparison.
Oh, and if you aren't basing your views on evidence then you aren't basing them on science to begin with.
Fair enough. I wanted to make the point that being a scientist/research doesn't necessarily mean that you're above basic human emotions and flaws, but I can clearly see why you think I was being more ... definitive than I intended.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is not a thread for debating ideas, but for expressing them.
Maybe if you make a thread for that purpose I will join, make a good opening statement and maybe I will find it worth my time.
Otherwise, you are abusing the purpose of the OP, please stop doing so.
Cool man, whatever. I was just trying to extract a more complete definition of your faith from you. That's all I was trying to do, but you just clammed up and started attacking and demeaning me. Despite the fact that you asked for questions in your very first post of this thread. Whatever dude. If you really don't want to talk about it, I'll back off.
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
If you are offended by my opinions then maybe you should not participate in threads like this.
You refuse to answer my questions about definition, but demand I give you definition after definition, nothing is ever good enough for you.
The Logos is God, that is my definition, research it if you want to know.
I do not debate semantics, which is the basis of your sophistry.
Good day to you sir, and please do not interrupt me again while defining my faith, which I will reiterate, is the purpose of this thread.
If you would like to debate the existence of the Logos, make a thread.
Read translated Qu'ran 3 times and bible in entirety 3 times. Asked someone from college who speaks Arabic if the Qu'ran translation was good and they said yes.
My explanation of faith is people use religion to try to convince people of things that are not based in logic or science. Aka, you have a galileo who uses science to say the earth revolves around the sun and is on the chopping block for it. Personally I think religion is a crutch for people who want to argue for things being a certain way when they have no other reasoning. It's instilled in us from evolution and it isn't always a bad thing. If everyone purely relied on reason and logic all the time, society would develop too fast and become chaotic. You have to have religion in society for order. Historically when someone comes up with a good idea in history and someone in a position of power wants to maintain their position in power they always revert to something religious in nature as arguments against the good idea person.
Take hunter gatherers for instance. All those cave paintings on walls of men slaying wild beasts could have been religious reasoning from some hunter explaining why people should stay nomadic instead of staying in one area with early farming for instance.
This happens all the time in history. People resort to religion when they find their authority is question from politicians to any kind of person. The important thing is realizing this and realizing religion is an evolutionary defense mechanism in my opinion.
A fine opinion if I ever saw one. Well done on figuring out what you believe.
At a minimum, at least you did not attack my beliefs to bolster your own, which is a clear sign of weakness.
God bless.
Hell is ignorance, or the state of not knowing.
The best rendition of this state of being is given by the allegory of Plato: The allegory of the Cave.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTWwY8Ok5I0
Watch the above video if you would like to understand the idea of Hell in my faith, the Cave is hell, and the prisoners are the ignorant.
So you're saying that if we had a magic machine that could go into the DNA in every cell in your body, and edit out a single Alu sequence in an unexpressed segment of DNA in each one, you'd be able to tell, and it would change who you are?
I would no longer be me.
Imagine if I had lost my right hand in a freak accident as a small child.
Would I still win the competition for the person who jacked himself with his right hand the most time in September of 1997?
Doubt it.
He has much to ask and little to say...the mark of genius.
It may a poor label, but the thing that it's labeling does exist.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Only if you disagree with thousands of years of philosophy.
One of the greatest physicists, who was an atheist.
Einstein thought that the universe was probably entirely deterministic, not because of religion, but simply because he thought randomness didn't make sense in the context of everything science had discovered, however, recent discoveries i.e. quantum mechanics has made it make more sense, but he could still prove correct in his intuition.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
One in particular I'd like to know is:
I feel like this is the question most avoided that leads me to be dubious of how much of religious belief is genuine intellectual agreement and not societal idea-subscription.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
That is such an excellent question. As an atheist, I'd be more than happy to believe in the existence of a god or gods as soon as the evidence for such belief rolls in. I don't believe in gods for the same reason I don't believe there's a elephant in my closet, and I'm quite happy to believe in gods and closet elephants once I have a reason to. My beliefs evolve all the time in light of new understanding and being able to change one's beliefs speaks to a person's courage and integrity. Rigid refusal to alter beliefs speaks to one's fanaticism. The opposite of faith is not doubt, it's certainty.
I feel sorry for those who are unwilling to change and grow in their belief system. On a spiritual level, it's like being dead inside - they blindly believe whatever dogma was spoonfed to them and deep down, they probably know they're wrong but they're invested in the lie and they're too scared to let it go. If there was a god out there, He/She/It certainly won't reward someone for blind faith or filling a collection plate.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
That's the thing. My problem with religion isn't believing in the existence of God, etc. It's the fact that it relies on defining someone else's own beliefs for them. They're my beliefs, I'll believe whatever I want, regardless of what you think is true.
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
But I have returned and we have God to thank for that. Nobody said anything worth my time to respond to but I will answer the dumb question from the OP.
What would make me change my mind?
Well, that's sort of like asking a mathematician(or me since I am a mathematician) what would make him change his mind that 2+2=4, you see, it would take a fundamental shift in the nature of his perception(i.e. going insane) or the way the universe operated for the mind to change at that level, same as what would make me change my mind about the work of the Logos.
I will check back when I have some more time to waste(maybe something more than sophistry will show up), I hope you all have a blessed day.
That dumb question is establishing a honest standard of evidence. That dumb question is the basis of falsification, and important idea in the philosophy of science, especially in verifying new theories. That dumb question is important if you expect to defend your position.
2+2=4 is a result derived from essentially arbitrary axioms. Maths is system descriptive of quantities, it is not a system descriptive of real interactions, or properties of observable things, within the universe, only that it might be used to describe those things. Like English. The truths it rests upon is basic human logic in applying and manipulating definitions.
In that way, it's not comparable to the idea of a physical or para-physical capable of clearly observable physical interactions with a definitive state of existence. This is very much a synthetic claim which theoretically should be very easy to support, much like the existence of copper or the movement of air.
What I am getting is 'there is no feasibly reachable standard of evidence could possibly disprove it to me'. This seems to me however, absurd. I can think of no possible method of justification for a claim like the idea of god that is not realistically fallible and therefore provides a very simply method of disproof if such fallibility in action can be demonstrated, such as data from observations of things being used to support the idea shown to be inaccurately calculated or with incorrect identification of things, or a logical argument from observations shown to suffer a fallacy.
How do you account for such possibilities?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
It seems that when someone is told something absurd, ridiculous, and without any evidence, and the person believes it (often because they trust the person telling them the lie or believing it serves their own interests), these are the people who are the most unwilling to change their beliefs. If you show them evidence that proves them wrong, they continue pretending to believe the lie.
And the ones who learn something based on evidence and logic, despite the valid body of support for believing it, they are generally far more willing to adjust their beliefs in light of new evidence.
In short, if you have no reason to believe something, you are unwilling to stop believing it.
If you have great reasons to believe something, you're far more willing to alter those beliefs.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2015/12/15/10219330/elite-scientists-hold-back-progress
I would strongly suggest that you disabuse yourself of the notion that people who base their beliefs on science are more willing to change their views based on new evidences.
Also, your post is downright insulting towards people who believe in religion.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I would strongly suggest that you disabuse yourself of the notion that your article provides a relevant objection. It's ironic that you quote a single authoritative study as iron-clad proof for your position when your article is all about how that exact mentality is delaying progress in science. But in any case, it's irrelevant. You're trying to refute the claim that people who base their beliefs on science are *more* likely to change their views based on new evidence than religious thinkers.
To simplify things, this is what just happened.
Person 1: Cheetahs are generally faster than sloths.
You: That's not true. Some cheetahs actually move slowly.
Person 1: But Cheetahs are still generally faster than sloths.
To be a real refutation, you'd need to compare how fast people adapt to new evidence basing their thinking on science vs. religion. One data point does not make a comparison.
Oh, and if you aren't basing your views on evidence then you aren't basing them on science to begin with.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Fair enough. I wanted to make the point that being a scientist/research doesn't necessarily mean that you're above basic human emotions and flaws, but I can clearly see why you think I was being more ... definitive than I intended.