|
|
Post by Cody™ on Feb 9, 2019 19:13:20 GMT
The atheists, like the Christians, were more bothered(sweated more) when invoking God to do horrible things than when instead just wishing something horrible would happen. That’s the interesting finding. As the article says if the subjects asked something completely made up like say “Golden Magic Squirrel” would they still sweat at the prospect? I doubt it. There's a big caveat you're missing, people actually DO horrible things in the name of God, the concept of God still has a certain societal stigma even to nonbelievers, so of course they're going to be more bothered by it as opposed to a "Golden Magical Squirrel". I could easily reverse that on to you, you obviously don't believe in Islam, but you would be far more bothered if someone said they're going to start a holy war in the name of Allah as opposed to starting a holy war in the name of leprechauns. 1. The experiment was about God doing something horrible, not other people doing horrible things in the name of God. 2. Of course I would be bothered if some jihadist said he’s going to start a holy war in the name of Allah because I see evidence of the devastation that is causing almost everyday in the media. But again that really has nothing to do with this article. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 9, 2019 19:16:10 GMT
If that is to be the conclusion, then by the same token one must conclude that those who do profess to be religious don't actually believe any more than atheists do. After all, they responded in exactly the same way. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Feb 9, 2019 21:30:50 GMT
Uh if I recall, you were claiming scientist don't know the age of the earth, but now they know what they're talking about? So basically you pick and choose whatever science makes you feel good. I have no problem accepting most scientific discoveries providing they’re based on empirically observed evidence. It is why I can accept micro-evolution but reject macro-evolution. 1. There's overwhelming empirical evidence for "macroevolution" (which is basically just a term Creationists use to move the goalpost), but unfortunately for you it's evidence that contradicts your Biblical worldview, so you choose to deny it.
2. There's no "empirical evidence" for God, but you still believe in that. Funny how that works.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Feb 9, 2019 21:33:39 GMT
There's a big caveat you're missing, people actually DO horrible things in the name of God, the concept of God still has a certain societal stigma even to nonbelievers, so of course they're going to be more bothered by it as opposed to a "Golden Magical Squirrel". I could easily reverse that on to you, you obviously don't believe in Islam, but you would be far more bothered if someone said they're going to start a holy war in the name of Allah as opposed to starting a holy war in the name of leprechauns. 1. The experiment was about God doing something horrible, not other people doing horrible things in the name of God. 2. Of course I would be bothered if some jihadist said he’s going to start a holy war in the name of Allah because I see evidence of the devastation that is causing almost everyday in the media. But again that really has nothing to do with this article. "1. The experiment was about God doing something horrible, not other people doing horrible things in the name of God."
Doesn't matter, doesn't really refute what I said.
"2. Of course I would be bothered if some jihadist said he’s going to start a holy war in the name of Allah because I see evidence of the devastation that is causing almost everyday in the media. But again that really has nothing to do with this article."
No actually it does for the reason I already pointed out. Just because something doesn't necessarily exist doesn't mean it can't have dangerous consequences and carry certain societal ramfications.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Feb 9, 2019 21:38:36 GMT
No
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2019 22:02:50 GMT
Uh if I recall, you were claiming scientist don't know the age of the earth, but now they know what they're talking about? So basically you pick and choose whatever science makes you feel good. I have no problem accepting most scientific discoveries providing they’re based on empirically observed evidence. It is why I can accept micro-evolution but reject macro-evolution. I'm the same with running. I accept micro-running, like down the street or something, but macro-running, like running a hundred miles? Impossible. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Feb 9, 2019 22:18:57 GMT
I have no problem accepting most scientific discoveries providing they’re based on empirically observed evidence. It is why I can accept micro-evolution but reject macro-evolution. 1. There's overwhelming empirical evidence for "macroevolution" (which is basically just a term Creationists use to move the goalpost), but unfortunately for you it's evidence that contradicts your Biblical worldview, so you choose to deny it.
2. There's no "empirical evidence" for God, but you still believe in that. Funny how that works.
1. Why did you leave out the “observable” condition? 2. God is not a scientific hypothesis. God’s existence is a necessity rather than contingent. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Feb 10, 2019 0:15:48 GMT
1. There's overwhelming empirical evidence for "macroevolution" (which is basically just a term Creationists use to move the goalpost), but unfortunately for you it's evidence that contradicts your Biblical worldview, so you choose to deny it.
2. There's no "empirical evidence" for God, but you still believe in that. Funny how that works.
1. Why did you leave out the “observable” condition? 2. God is not a scientific hypothesis. God’s existence is a necessity rather than contingent. 1. We have observed it. I know, this is the part where you go "We've only seen microevolution, not macro! LOL!" They're the same thing, despite what probably want to believe there's no such thing as a "kind" (even Creationist "expert" Kent Hovind" couldn't actually define a "kind"). Besides you don't necessarily need to "observe" something to know it happened. If you're investigating a murder mystery and you have DNA, fingerprints, and a bullet that belongs to a suspect's registered gun, do you dismiss the investigation simply because you didn't actually see the murder yourself? That's the level of absurdity you're arguing.
2. You've made ID/pseudoscience arguments for God, I've seen them, don't even try to deny that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Feb 11, 2019 1:25:33 GMT
I have no reason to care what they believe. Horse S***. Every member of your cult has been brainwashed and directed to induce others to join your cult. The only way people join your cult is if you can dissuade them of their current beliefs.
OTOH, you may not care what atheists believe because you know they are immune to your brainwashing and you know not to waste time trying to convert them.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 11, 2019 2:01:00 GMT
I have no reason to care what they believe. Horse S***. Every member of your cult has been brainwashed and directed to induce others to join your cult. The only way people join your cult is if you can dissuade them of their current beliefs.
OTOH, you may not care what atheists believe because you know they are immune to your brainwashing and you know not to waste time trying to convert them.
Nope. Don't care one way or the other. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2019 7:08:58 GMT
I mean they’re being asked to vocally challenge God (whether a fictional being or not) to do horrible things to them and their loved ones, and that alone is upsetting enough to even think about. That doesn’t exactly prove they believe in God, and the article even says so. The title is just kind of misleading The atheists, like the Christians, were more bothered(sweated more) when invoking God to do horrible things than when instead just wishing something horrible would happen. That’s the interesting finding. As the article says if the subjects asked something completely made up like say “Golden Magic Squirrel” would they still sweat at the prospect? I doubt it. Well a golden magic squirrel doesn't sound very intimating and no one even knows what it is or does, whereas the the things most of us know of or have been taught about the Christian God is more scary to think about existing since part of the belief is acknowledging that he has the power to cause harm if he wanted to and that we shouldn't test him. I can understand them reacting that way even if they challenged Zeus or some other powerful and supernatural being whether existent or not. I sometimes think and worry about things that never happened and almost impossible to ever happen but it still makes me uncomfortable to even imagine it at the same time. It doesn't always mean I actually believe it will happen. The article also mentioned that perhaps the atheists were once Christians or grew up with Christian beliefs, and even though they've let go of their belief in God they've still grown accustomed to that fear of God that they've held on to for so long. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 12, 2019 20:21:11 GMT
1. There's overwhelming empirical evidence for "macroevolution" (which is basically just a term Creationists use to move the goalpost), but unfortunately for you it's evidence that contradicts your Biblical worldview, so you choose to deny it. 2. There's no "empirical evidence" for God, but you still believe in that. Funny how that works.
1. Why did you leave out the “observable” condition (in Macroevolution)? 2. God is not a scientific hypothesis. God’s existence is a necessity rather than contingent. 1. There Are Six Important Patterns of Macroevolution: Mass Extinctions. Adaptive Radiation. Convergent Evolution. Coevolution. Punctuated Equilibrium. Developmental Gene Changes. Macroevolution changes can be seen in the following very specific examples: In 1905 de Vries found that some of his evening primroses, Oenothera lamarckiana, had developed a variant number of chromosomes that was not able to be bred with the original plant. The new species was then named Oenothera gigas. A sterile hybrid of the primrose species Primula verticillata and primula floribunda were crossbred. The offspring were fertile, therefore showing macroevolution, and were named Primula kewensis. The tragopogon miscellus was a macroevolution of Tragopogon dubius and Tragopogon protensis. The flower tragopogon mirus independently originated, indicating macroevolution of the tragopogon species. Tragopogon micelius was found by Owenby in 1950 to have originated in through various hybridizations. An attempt by Russian scientist Karphchenko to cross a radish with a cabbage resulted initially in the creation of hybrid plant that was sterile. However, the seeds of those plants became fertile with the parent species, creating the new plant Raphanobrassica. Hemp nettle was a new species of plant created by the hybridization, in natural form, of Galeopsis pubescens and Galeopsis speciosa. Insisting on what can be observed as one way of being convinced is reasonable. Unfortunately when applied to a deliberate supernatural, outside of personal credulity, the God of the Gaps arguments and the claims of scripture, one is inevitably disappointed. 2. God is only a necessity if we know there is no permanent element in nature to conceivably explain everything else. We do not know this. |
|
