Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ligesh · 01-25-2006, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtype_alpha

Just because something is simple doesn't mean it is true. The simplest explanation for most things in this world is "Goddidit." It's simple because there's no evidence for it, and is vacuous enough not to need any.

Your hypothesis has a similar level of simplicity. It can fit the facts, just not the evidence.

The only problem with 'Goddidit' is that it is UNFALSIFIABLE. Do you know what that means? My theory is simple yet makes _falsifiable_ predictions. And at the present time, fits all the statistics.

Quote:

That's because the actions you keep describing are not "theistic actions." If they were, it would be true that no atheist has ever joined the army, fought in a major war, comitted a major crime, or perpetrated an act of terrorism. This is simply not the case, so the actions you describe in this hypothesis are not unique to theism. And SINCE they are not unique to theism, we can justly eliminate theism as a direct causal factor; logically, we can say that theism is not a neccesary condition for risky behavior (since not all criminals are theists) and is also not a sufficient condition for risky behavior (since not all theists engage in risky behavior). Whether or not something RELATED to theism is a factor still remains to be explored. So far, however, your simple explanation "theism = courage = criminal behavior" is, indeed, just as simple and as true as "theism = fear of punishment = moral behavior."

Among human beings, we cannot talk of absolutes. We can only talk of correlation and statistics. For individuals, there might some special cases that can override all the parameters of our theory. So your conclusion is pretty much absurd. Not surprising since you have been indulging in absurd ad-hocing all around in this thread. I can only say that there will be preponderance of theists voluntarily joining the army. This is actually true if you look at history. And I have even had a detailed discussion in the other thread where I argued that human beings, when under duress, would mostly adopt beliefs that are helpful under that condition. There are no atheists in foxholes might as well be true.

--
:: Ligesh :: http://ligesh.com

DMC · 01-26-2006, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ligesh

Because Christianity doesn't advocate suicide attacks. Christianity is about Christ, and the fundamental principle, at least on the outside, is supposed to be the Golden Rule. So no Pastor can really convince his congregation to kill others for the sake of furthering the cause of the God. The problem with Koran is that it lacks that one statement, and in its place you have 400 passages saying 'doom' awaits the unbelievers and direct passages asking the believer to kill and die for the cause of the Islam.

But my hypothesis is not about Islam or Christianity, but about the general human tendency to believe in the supernatural. I just used Islam, Christianity as examples. My real theory is actually about the origins of ALL religions, and the primary focus is the explain the origins and nature of tribal religions.

--
:: Ligesh :: http://ligesh.com

I don't think you can stop with religion when it comes to belief in the supernatural, and to be honest, I think the term belief is too strong a word to be used here. I think people allow for the possibility of something like ghosts, without sound logic or reasoning, simply because the large majority of people have never developed the ability to use logic. Critical thinking is something that requires development, and far too many people are not interested in spending a waking minute contemplating what they could just take for granted and be done with. Again, I don't think that should be restricted to religious mindsets.

ligesh · 01-26-2006, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMC

I don't think you can stop with religion when it comes to belief in the supernatural, and to be honest, I think the term belief is too strong a word to be used here. I think people allow for the possibility of something like ghosts, without sound logic or reasoning, simply because the large majority of people have never developed the ability to use logic. Critical thinking is something that requires development, and far too many people are not interested in spending a waking minute contemplating what they could just take for granted and be done with. Again, I don't think that should be restricted to religious mindsets.

The generally held misconception that believers are ignorant dolts who will believe in anything is something that Boyer takes a lot of effort to refute. He says people will not believe in ANYTHING, but rather only in a narrow set of ideas that conform to certain standards, and are fiercely skeptical of everything that falls outside of it. Everyone is a skeptic, and he will believe only in certain specific things that he finds useful.

--
:: Ligesh :: http://ligesh.com

FarmMama · 01-26-2006, 04:03 AM

Please keep this discussion civil and focused on the arguments, ok?

FM

newtype_alpha · 01-26-2006, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ligesh

Do you mean that blacks have a gene that makes them criminal, and also another gene that makes them believe in God.

What the hell are you talking about? Nobody said anything about genes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ligesh

The only way an artificial category like blacks can account for this correlation is if they have separate genes for both criminality and belief.

How is it an artificial category? Black people DO exist, you know. Black people ARE signifigantly more likely to be theists than white people (actually, around 96% of blacks believe in some religion or another). If blacks are overrepresented in prisons, then statistically, religion would be proportionately overrepresented. Simple as that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ligesh

So you have to first prove that Blacks have INNATE tendency to be criminal, and an INNATE tendency to belief.

I don't have to prove anything of the sort. I only have to prove that they are more likely to be in prison AND more likely to believe in religion; that's just a matter of finding statistics. There is no need to look for innate anything since both could probably be traced to a third party causal factor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ligesh

That's why I said, bringing in artificial categories simply cannot EXPLAIN the correlation.

Once agian, how is it artificial? Black people DO exist, don't they? I mean, it's possible they don't... my parents, my fiance and my kids might just be a bunch of really dark-skinned white folks

Quote:

Originally Posted by ligesh

If you say poverty, it does make sense. Poverty can cause criminality AND belief independently, but even that doesn't mean that there isn't a causation element. For that you have to find the statistics among the poor Atheists, and see whether they commit crime.

Statistics would be adequate, but from anecdotal evidence I can already make a solid prediction: they sure as hell do.

newtype_alpha · 01-26-2006, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ligesh

Good. They claim Seljuks were harrassing the pilgrims who went to Jerusalem, and that's what caused the pope to call for a coalition to drive them out. But again it was a specific incident dealing with specific land. Not a general call to arms demanding Muslims kill infidels wherever they find them.

No such call to arms exists in Islam either. Reality is funny like that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ligesh

I have no clue how to respond these nonsense statements. How can anyone in this board kill me. River did make a statement that can be construed as a threat, and I did question him, but he denied, but still I consider it as a veiled threat.

Then you can criticize Islam without a death threat. Thank for for torpedoing your own point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ligesh

But funnily, why haven't YOU been killed? For all I can see, with your half-assed attempts at defending Koran, you actually butchered it far more than I did with my rhetoric.

Maybe that's because I'm not defending the Quran? I'm defending accuracy. And an accurate asessment of the Quran doesn't exactly cast it in a good light.

newtype_alpha · 01-26-2006, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ligesh

The only problem with 'Goddidit' is that it is UNFALSIFIABLE. Do you know what that means? My theory is simple yet makes _falsifiable_ predictions. And at the present time, fits all the statistics.

Being unfalisfiable is far from the ONLY problem with "Goddidit." And no, your theory does NOT fit all the statistics, since as I have shown you, only about .4 percent of Americans are atheists while about .25 percent of inmates are atheists. The correlation is a bit less than you would like to suggest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ligesh

Among human beings, we cannot talk of absolutes. We can only talk of correlation and statistics. For individuals, there might some special cases that can override all the parameters of our theory. So your conclusion is pretty much absurd.

Fallacy of overwhemling exception. If there are more cases that disprove the rule than prove it, what is the point of the rule?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ligesh

I can only say that there will be preponderance of theists voluntarily joining the army.

Theists are not particularly overrepresented in the armed forces either. Same problem, different area.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ligesh

And I have even had a detailed discussion in the other thread where I argued that human beings, when under duress, would mostly adopt beliefs that are helpful under that condition. There are no atheists in foxholes might as well be true.

I followed that other thread with great interest. The thing is, belief in God is not the ONLY belief that is helpful under that condition. There is nothing inherent in theism that makes this the case.

ligesh · 01-26-2006, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtype_alpha

No such call to arms exists in Islam either. Reality is funny like that.

Hello: What's wrong with you? Didn't we actually discuss around 3 passages that said it is the duty of the Muslims to fight against the Infidels, and that Allah will reward them handsomely for that? After all the discussion, you just forgot everything we had done till now.

And 325 passages consigning infidels to doom.

Quote:

Then you can criticize Islam without a death threat. Thank for for torpedoing your own point.

I told you, River did threaten me. But I am on the Internet, and it is pretty much a ridiculous concept. And of course, it MIGHT even be possible to criticize Islam without incurring a death threat. I mean, everything is possible. It is POSSIBLE that I might grow an extra limb tomorrow. So I won't totally discard the chance of not ending up dead for criticizing Islam. But if I make public statements against Islam, there is a high chance that I might end up dead.

Quote:

Maybe that's because I'm not defending the Quran? I'm defending accuracy. And an accurate asessment of the Quran doesn't exactly cast it in a good light.

Whatever. You butchered it better than I could ever do. Maybe I should adopt your strategy. It appears a good one. Actually, vehement criticism of Koran has been interpreted by River as a sign of Koran's divine origin. So I think yours is the better strategy. Thanks for a good lesson on how to criticize for the maximum effect.

Anyway, I don't want to derail this thread into a discussion on Islam. If you want to please reply to this in the nudity thread. We can continue this there.

ligesh · 01-26-2006, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtype_alpha

Being unfalisfiable is far from the ONLY problem with "Goddidit." And no, your theory does NOT fit all the statistics, since as I have shown you, only about .4 percent of Americans are atheists while about .25 percent of inmates are atheists. The correlation is a bit less than you would like to suggest.

<edited> Don't twist the figures. 4-10% atheists outside. Wikipedia very specifically says 40 times discrepancy. I mean, I did not make up that figure. *40* times. That's it. *40* times.

Quote:

Fallacy of overwhemling exception. If there are more cases that disprove the rule than prove it, what is the point of the rule?

You did not come up with a single exception to my theory. I mean, you can say that it still doesn't have 100% evidence in its favor, but it doesn't have a single evidence against it at this point, though the statistics seems to tentatively indicate that my theory is correct.

No not individual anecdotes please. I don't consider single incidents to be worthy of any attention.

Quote:

Theists are not particularly overrepresented in the armed forces either. Same problem, different area.

I can in fact, predict that theists would be more inclined for 'high risk jobs' than atheists. And the maxim "NO atheists in foxholes" clearly supports my theory. And that maxim is borne out of the observations of thousands of years of war activity, and I am sure it does contain some core truth.

So "There's no atheists in foxhole" can be extrapolated to mean that "If it were not for believers, there won't be any foxholes".

Quote:

I followed that other thread with great interest. The thing is, belief in God is not the ONLY belief that is helpful under that condition. There is nothing inherent in theism that makes this the case.

You ask to god for protection. Help you in the time of crisis, he will. "NO atheists in foxholes" Remember.

--
:: Ligesh :: http://ligesh.com

ligesh · 01-26-2006, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtype_alpha

What the hell are you talking about? Nobody said anything about genes.

Then why are the black people overrepresented in prisons AND religion? I mean, you stated the case of blacks as being something different from that of caused by eduction. Since you already stated education as a cause, why bring in this blacks statistics?

Quote:

How is it an artificial category? Black people DO exist, you know. Black people ARE signifigantly more likely to be theists than white people (actually, around 96% of blacks believe in some religion or another). If blacks are overrepresented in prisons, then statistically, religion would be proportionately overrepresented. Simple as that.

Why? You have already listed education as a cause. So is there something in blacks that cannot be accounted by education and poverty? Then it must be genes. But then again, you can't really discount the effect of religion. I mean, it could be that blacks are criminals BECAUSE they believe in God. Isn't that a possibility? You can't remove causation by simply bringing in ANY random third factor. It should be something that INDEPENDENTLY causes the two parameters that are correlated.

So just saying blacks are both believers and criminals, doesn't cut it. It is possible that criminal nature in blacks could be due to their belief.

Quote:

I don't have to prove anything of the sort. I only have to prove that they are more likely to be in prison AND more likely to believe in religion; that's just a matter of finding statistics. There is no need to look for innate anything since both could probably be traced to a third party causal factor.

So how do you know it isn't belief that is is making blacks commit more crime?

Quote:

Once agian, how is it artificial? Black people DO exist, don't they? I mean, it's possible they don't... my parents, my fiance and my kids might just be a bunch of really dark-skinned white folks

Blacks do exist, but what does it have to do with belief/criminality statistics. Hello?

And that too why bring in blacks when you have already listed education/poverty as a cause. Unless you think Blacks have some sort of genetic proclivity to crime AND religion.

Quote:

Statistics would be adequate, but from anecdotal evidence I can already make a solid prediction: they sure as hell do.

Please. Already you are on the borderline of unscientific methodology. Bring in anecdotes, and your whole argument flies right out of path of respectability.

--
:: Ligesh :: http://ligesh.com

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-26-2006, 04:03 AM	#124
FarmMama Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,086	Please keep this discussion civil and focused on the arguments, ok? FM

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.