Rasa

bleachedjam:

I saw what people were saying about you not understanding Atheism and I kinda have some additional information that both sides on the topic of theism should be able to agree to if they are actually thinking about their religious beliefs complexly.

Belief in a creator, divine or not, is not…

In response (“you” referring to submission’s author):

I wouldn’t call it the same thing as faith (for science), but I know the reasoning you’re using. We have nothing but our imperfect perception to verify things to begin with, so we inherently deal with elements of uncertainty. 

Science differs though by embracing uncertainty through continuous discovery. That it is imperfect is a given. It’s part of the design of science. That’s why there are such things as inventing new fields of math or making new tools to do science with. By the nature of this structure, science is inherently self-correcting over time. And it has explained a lot of phenomena accurately.

Perhaps the “explanation” we see is somehow marred because it’s based only our perception of the accuracy. But at the end of the day, what else really matters? We built rockets to the moon and made cures for diseases. Maybe there is some higher-order truth we’ve misunderstood.

But pragmatically: it works. When we find something that works even better, I’ll be happy to support that, too. 

as-saleem:

rasa2013:

as-saleem:

There are 3 sources of definitive knowledge.

1. The sound mind. That is, your logic. Knowing a daughter cannot give birth to her mother for example. It is not something that needs data or experimentation. It is a known absolute fact, by default. And at no time in the future or the past will it…

You’re talking about scientists not atheists. And those are not sources of definitive knowledge. The reason we use science is BECAUSE large groups of people using their 5 senses are extremely fallible. We have too many cognitive biases and sensory illusions and cognitive limitations for those to qualify as definitive knowledge. 

Ultimately, it’s the theists are making claims about the universe anyway. But don’t let that fact obscure the fact that your ideas of what are definitive truths is wrong.

So, you are saying what humans perceive is too fallible, so rather, we rely on technology made by those fallible individuals. Technology which is vastly inferior to the ones that made it. That is actually even less reliable.

“Vastly inferior.” incorrect. Technology can reliably do things that humans cannot. For example, technology can capture images in the infrared or ultraiviolet spectrum of light. Technology can pick up low-frequency or high-frequency sound humans cannot hear. Technology reliably does what we program it to do, and we can program it to do things that we ourselves cannot do. 

The reason this is possible is because we are self-conscious and do have cognitive ability. Combining those two abilities, we are capable of analyzing our own limitations and devising ways to overcome them through technology. It’s well within our cognitive ability to do that. 

What is impossible, at present, is for us to overcome our cognitive and sensory limitations without technology. Our “biological machinery” just isn’t equipped to do that. We can temporarily overcome some things by focusing, but our capacity to focus is limited (we get tired).

As for machines being inferior, they are neither inferior nor superior. They are just different. Machines are made for a specific purpose and excel at that purpose. Saying a human cannot create a machine that is superior in a specific realm would be to deny that we have boats (they definitely “swim” better than us) or to deny machines that build thousands of times faster than we can. 

as-saleem:

There are 3 sources of definitive knowledge.

1. The sound mind. That is, your logic. Knowing a daughter cannot give birth to her mother for example. It is not something that needs data or experimentation. It is a known absolute fact, by default. And at no time in the future or the past will it…

You’re talking about scientists not atheists. And those are not sources of definitive knowledge. The reason we use science is BECAUSE large groups of people using their 5 senses are extremely fallible. We have too many cognitive biases and sensory illusions and cognitive limitations for those to qualify as definitive knowledge. 

Ultimately, it’s the theists are making claims about the universe anyway. But don’t let that fact obscure the fact that your ideas of what are definitive truths is wrong.

Wonder if this will hold up in future discoveries :)

le-darkness:

A.Christie, AUS answers:

I believe God exists because of the evidence that I’ve come across in my own life that’s been made available to me, across a range of different areas, such as:
1. Evidence through the bible, prophecies, history, archaeology etc
2. Evidence in my life and people’s…

I was happy with you existing as you did until you butchered Evolution.

Survival of the fittest is a common phrase that doesn’t really mean anything in evolutionary biology because it (literally) translates to, “Survival of those that survive the best.” This is because “fitness” is a defined term in biology which means how well a living thing survives/reproduces. 

Fitness doesn’t merely mean selfish. Fitness includes a couple other things, particularly for social animals like ourselves. Fitness for humans includes the ability to establish relationships, negotiate in societies and across societies, form coherent values-systems and enforce them, etc. Fitness also includes selection for altruism in various other species. Some bird species are known to adopt other eggs. Mammalian species can do the same thing in certain cases. Penguins survive together to protect their young, relying on each other for body warmth. etc

The problem of complexity just is NOT solved by postulating an even more complex reason. And your junk yard illustration is completely inaccurate. The actual reasoning behind our universe is the probability that life will spontaneously form GIVEN physical properties of reality. The physical properties of reality make life difficult to arise, yes, but still probable. Particularly when you account for the fact that there are billions of stars with billions of planets and given 14 billion years (a jet wouldn’t spontaneously form in that time because the physical laws of raelity do not make it likely to occur; life is different. Physical realities rules make it likely to occur given the right circumstances). 

“Self-giving,” as you call it, is easily explained by evolution, as I pointed out earlier. We’re a social species. We need each other. We’ve evolved to need each other and to want each other. This includes our desire to belong to something greater than just our self. 

Embrace the beauty of science, friend. Believe in God all you want, but understand what science really demonstrates.

prayerworkz:

Evolutionary “scientists” would excel as Disney imagineers. Take for example the gifted folks at the very popular “The Future is Wild” ministry. These secular prophets predict the future. They give long-term evolutionary horoscopes for the earth—what evolution may do in 100 million years time, all…

The only thing you’ve proven here is that you fundamentally don’t understand science. 

The past isn’t merely imagined, there are tons of data available that models must fit, including the fossil record. The future is different because there is no fossil record of the future. What the scientists are doing is more imaginative when it’s about the future. The point is more intellectual curiosity at that point. If they’re peddling their future horoscopes as factual or something, then they’re crackpots. 

So with evolutionary past, we have the fossil record available. The theory only has to be a useful tool that’s descriptive of reality, it doesn’t need to be 100% correct (this is impossible, given human limitations). And thus far, evolution is the best theory we have and continuously being improved with further data. Until someone can provide us with a theory that creates a paradigm shift (that fits the data even better), then evolution will rule the day. And considering it’s been around for over 100 years now, good luck replacing it. 

Oh. And I’ve just noticed who posted this. Hi prayerworkz. lol Should have guessed it was you.