Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Brian Wood on July 7, 2011 at 3:34pm

To my knowledge, I believe in nothing except what has pretty good evidence.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alice on July 7, 2011 at 4:26pm

The word "believe" smacks of a lack of confidence doesn't it...  leave it out and sound believable!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alice on July 7, 2011 at 9:30pm

It's about an attitude to life I think.  I'm not sure how long humans will last on the earth - we might have another 2 million years or only a few hundred - it very much depends on how much we can destroy it and if natural events are kind and compatible with us.  Such as asteroids and climate change and sun activity etc.  And in that time I'm not sure if we will unlock all of the answers to the universe.  Lawrence Krause was saying in a you tube the other day that in a short amount of time the evidence of the big bang won't be there as background radiation and so future life won't find it and therefore won't know about it.  So their world of science will look different to ours.  But I think it is safe to say that the scientific methods is a good approach to take.  A pinch of scepticism mixed in with curiosity, openness and a willingness to learn new things and think in different ways - but all the while having the scepticism keep us on track.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by D R Hosie on July 9, 2011 at 3:12am

The two things that stand out in my mind, about the myriad of life forms on earth:  That from a microbial level on, life succeeds by 'tooth and nail.'  And, that we are the only life form that has succeeded to our own level of (arguably) 'higher intelligence,' and technology.

So I can't help but think that the reason we appear to be so all alone in the universe, may have more to do with the odds of intelligent life forms evolving and succeeding to our own level of technology, within the time allotted by the life spans of the individual solar systems. And, barring any untimely extinction events - both natural and, as you've already alluded to, the self-induced variety.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by bobh on July 7, 2011 at 9:53pm

just great...a supernaturalist on an atheist website.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on July 16, 2011 at 5:18am

Actually I think the attitude that we should be nice to each other just because we happen to share a non-belief in God is one of the things holding the reason-based movement back.

 

To make an analogy, if we were on an anti-sexism forum and someone said "Geez, it's sure nice to be among fellow anti-sexists who think men and women can be treated equally and should unite... that way we'll have an easier time deporting all these damn black people!"

If this were to happen, you would be under no burden whatsoever to respect this person just because he shares your anti-sexist position and saying "Hey, there's nothing about anti-sexism specifically that means you can't be a racist, so let's not attack these racists among us."

 

That would be absurd. But it's similar to what you're asking now. The reason I am an atheist (and the reason many others like me are) is because we've embraced a skeptical and reality-based worldview, that excludes the supernatural (for which there is no evidence) and holds that to believe in things without good reason is dangerous and should be avoided.

 

So when we see someone on an atheist site who has not embraced a skeptical worldview, of course we're still going to "attack them" (though obviously not violently): from our perspective, they are almost exactly the same as people who are not atheists.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brian Wood on July 8, 2011 at 11:05am

I believe a lot of stuff.  I believe when I arise from bed in the morning I will not plunge to the basement.  I believe this although I also believe that both the floor and I are composed of atoms at great distances from each other and that normal earth matter is mostly space.  I believe the former because past experience has provided some evidence, and I believe the latter because the authorities I have consulted seem authentic.  I have "faith" in neither, since faith requires no evidence whatsoever.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by D R Hosie on July 9, 2011 at 3:22am

I am absolutely sure - beyond any reasonable doubt - that Casey Anthony was responsible for the death of her 3 year old daughter, Caylee.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Sarbeck on July 9, 2011 at 3:28am

Certainty without [having heard the] evidence?

Is that like faith?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by D R Hosie on July 10, 2011 at 1:46am

Everyone who watched the live coverage of this trial, saw and heard all of the evidence.

But why would anyone question 'certainty', based on a preponderance of the virtual mountain of physical, scientific, and behavioral evidence that was presented at trial?  Would that be indicative of either not having seen the evidence one's self, or simply of one's ability to be badly confused by the defense?  One who's strategy could be best characterized by the adage that, "If we can't dazzle you with the details, we certainly expect to baffle you with the bullsh!t."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Sarbeck on July 14, 2011 at 12:36am

"Everyone who watched the live coverage of this trial, saw and heard all of the evidence."

I question your certainty because, though you might have watched the live coverage, you heard none of what the jurors said during their deliberations. They probably did not share your absolutism.

 

"...based on a preponderance of the ... evidence?

Another reason to question your certainty: you know the Anthony trial was not a civil trial. Your outrage appears to be so great that you are thinking and writing carelessly.

 

A third reason to question your certainty: you don't accept the idea that it's better to free a guilty person than to convict an innocent person. The law is less mechanistic than you want it to be.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by D R Hosie on July 16, 2011 at 3:03am

Tom,

The original question was "What (stuff) do you believe ... even though you don't have evidence ..."

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but in a criminal trial surrounding a circumstantial case, one would generally be expected to evaluate a preponderance of the evidence, in order to arrive any finding of guilt or innocence. And if guilt should be determined, that it should be beyond any reasonable doubt.

Now, I can't speak for the juror's in this case - nor was I attempting to; I simply do not agree with the reasoning (of lack of reasoning) behind their verdict.

But by all accounts, they appear to have been sufficiently "baffled by the BS" to, to have precluded any rational debate among themselves. (And whatever actual discussions were held, it seemed obvious to me - maybe not to you - that precious little time was given to "examining the [actual] evidence" that was presented at trial.)

And, while the law is certainly not "less mechanistic than (I) want it to be," I find the argument for two wrongs somehow inferring a 'right,' to be some cold comfort whenever an egregious miscarriage of justice manages to prevail.

But, again - and as it was originally put forth - these are my opinions, which I put forth as holding "beyond any reasonable doubt."

But rather than play mattress police, by presuming to parse and mischaracterize my ability to formulate and hold an opinion in the first place, or my right to express that opinion in the second, I'd much rather see you take a more straightforward - and less high-handed - approach to dialog.  One where you would be willing to share your own thoughts and insights concerning particular points of the case at hand - or even your own feelings about, for instance, the verdict reaction in this case.

(I find the approach useful as a kind of personal litmus test; to know whether you're speaking up because you have something to say, or just talking to hear your ears rattle.)

Peace.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• Next ›
• Page