I don't really care what anyone believes in, so long as it's not affecting me.
How do you know when it affects you or not?
Ramzi wrote:
I think teaching evolution and the scientific method will lead people to atheism, even if it's never mentioned explicitly.
I agree with that. However, I think it will be a result of the evolutionary part of the teaching, not the scientific method part. In other words, the students will only be able to use the scientific method to look at the world from an evolutionary viewpoint because they haven't learned any other viewpoint. Should they be taught Biblical Creation and the scientific method, I think you'll see them turn to Christianity. Should they be taught the scientific method without any theory of origins, they'll probably use it to justify whatever theory they already believe or favor. In other words, I don't believe the scientific method by itself can generally convince people that one theory about origins is better than another, but that the philosophical background upon which the scientific method is built does that.
I guess everything affects me if you want to be technical. Chaos butterflies, and the like. Even you have a force of gravity on me. But typically I mean something affects me if it stops me from the living the type of life I want to. Two gay dudes having sex somewhere does not affect me. Saying they cannot have sex with each other because it's immoral does affect them.
What do you mean "the philosophical background upon which the scientific method is built"?
That's rich. I'd say there is a fair division between atheists who were born into believing families and atheists who were born into atheistic families. I'm of the prior. This means I had to counter my family, education, and society. I doubt you were born atheist and reasoned your way to such irrational beliefs. Don't tell me about open-mindedness.
Your statements indicate that you are no longer as open-minded as you may have been previously.
I could agree with this, but framed differently. I am confident in what I believe, and am willing to change provided the right evidence. But nothing I've heard from anyone I've talked to has convinced me, and I'm skeptical that there is a theist with an argument I haven't heard before. I'm sure you're the same way: confident in your beliefs, unmoved by any atheistic arguments. Fact is, at the end of the day neither of us will change despite our willingness to. With that said, we still need to get along. I don't really care what anyone believes in, so long as it's not affecting me.
As for the evolution argument that's been taking place, I'll say there isn't a strict relationship between it and atheism, but a relationship none-the-less. It's kind of like how some companies are so confident in their product they will offer a free sample, knowing you'll love it and buy. I think teaching evolution and the scientific method will lead people to atheism, even if it's never mentioned explicitly.
If he told me he was a theist philosopher, and believes in God for good reason, I would ask him what those reasons are and dismiss them one by one.
Ramzi wrote:
This conversation would merely be to understand him and his faith better, but not to discover truths about the real world.
I'd say this puts you in the "people who aren't willing to change their axioms" category.
That's rich. I'd say there is a fair division between atheists who were born into believing families and atheists who were born into atheistic families. I'm of the prior. This means I had to counter my family, education, and society. I doubt you were born atheist and reasoned your way to such irrational beliefs. Don't tell me about open-mindedness.
Sheeis. According to the theory of evolution by natural selection, there is no intelligent guide. If you postulate an intelligent guide, it is not the theory of evolution by natural selection anymore. But like I said, you can ignore this.
fine, G-d created the process of evolution from the beginning and it takes its natural course (except of course where G-d chooses to alter it, same as with any physical constant)
That's not faith at all. Faith is a process of non-thinking whereby one accepts beliefs passed down through tradition with no evidence, or even against the evidence.
I disagree. Faith is based on some kind of logic. The axioms of the various kinds of logic used to justify various faiths may differe significantly and may be a matter of debate, but every faith about which I know is based on logic.
I've always understood faith to mean a belief in something not requiring evidence. This "logic" you speak of would seem to be a sort of evidence. If the casual believer was to tell me his beliefs are justified due to "faith" in the way I described it, I would tell him that is not a good epistemic system for developing beliefs. If he told me he was a theist philosopher, and believes in God for good reason, I would ask him what those reasons are and dismiss them one by one.
The only philosophical conversation I would enjoy with a theist would be one where he admits he is a theist for no rational reason, but rather merely due to upbringing or some kind of genetic predisposition. Then the conversation would merely become a game where we presume certain axioms about his faith, and then try to discuss and discover more about it. This conversation would merely be to understand him and his faith better, but not to discover truths about the real world.
Can we get a summary? I don't like single-link topics. At least try to convince me that it's interesting.
The guy tries to explain how physical objects can be bits, like a quarter having a heads side and a tails side. He then goes on to say that all these particles in the universe are bits in a giant computer running algoirthms which give the universe its complexity.
Just because you can model or simulate the universe with a computer, doesn't mean the universe is a computer. Emergent phenomonen exists outside of computers and algorithms. With his line of reasoning, I could say that the universe is like a cup of coffee.
I like to think scientifically, as I imagine many of the people on these boards do. What is perceived as faster is not interesting to me, you know, unless I was studying cognitive psychology. I choose to conceptualize the speed of a movie by the number of frames because it eliminates the problems of physical reality. Furthermore, I like to conceptualize a game as a mathematical system, rather than a device running within our universe. For example, in our universe, the world record for Mario can become 1 second, if by some bizarre chance the electrical equipment the game was running on misbehaved so as to load to end game sequence. By viewing the game as a mathematical system based on its source code, I can "solve" the game in a more meaningful way than just relying on quantum improbability. (And even though we may not be ever able to make the perfect movie, we can know there is a theoretical best time that cannot be beaten.) By choosing to measure speed by the number of frames, not only do I eliminate problems of human subjectivity and real-world physics, but I also maintain a consistency in viewing video games as idealized mathematical systems. Entertainment is an ancillary goal of the site. I think many of the people who participate here do so questioning the theoretical limits of the game. That question would have a boring answer if we are thinking about the universe outside of our heads, rather than the ones inside.
I am, however, for changing the name to NESquik.
