1) I also think so.
2) I might have fathomed your point (r u giving credit to my intellect or just patting your own back?...... :) Can I say the same about you? I doubt it!) but where did it mean that I agreed to that or had/have to agree to that? This is called fallacy bred by compounding assumptions which largely this post of your is. For evidence, just count how many times at critical stages in this post you have used word assume/assumption......
3) Not sure if I should admire your audacity or decry your childish effort in trying to explain the great body of rational and logical knowledge within every religion with this cliche/rudimentary type example. How can you be so.........
In trying to make your point, in continuation of your much vaunted analogy, you make too many assumptions. I thought you would be intelligent enough to appreciate this point in brevity. It is not natural but different instinct. OK...tell me why few people are gay and great majority is straight/normal? What would you attribute it to? Biology? Psychology? Bio-psychology? What is bio-psychology other than a study of instincts?
4) Because I have clearly shown that this rational being is as irrational as Mullah of Toba in all matters non-religious or non-faith-pertaining. He or she does not apply the same binary approach to life of lie created by the believers. They not only recognize the shades but also enjoy them. Therefore, the rational thought in the face of the limitations of our knowledge can only exist in a believer after they accept the first cause.
5) In an evidence demanding, rational world, you have to resort to an assumption for a test? Great!!! For the very reason, this so-called experiment was not worthy of consideration even for a second.
6) Both propositions hold. In the former case and in the majority of cases within this category, it is picked thru experimentation and later adopted thru habit forming. While in the latter case and in the few of cases within this category, it is biological. The subsequent point you tried t make thru the use of this example is mere repetition of what you have been saying since eons on this form and thus holds no value for me.
A central thesis of yours, especially in this round, has been your emphasis on the use of term scientific evidence. Remember we have never touched how you define or what qualifies as scientific evidence, population, sample, confidence intervals, etc. You seem to have been only user of this term and reader of scientific studies but never been into it. Let me know if otherwise is the case. There are great fallacies to be found in the philosophy of science. Try looking into them.
For the red text in your original post, a big spontaneous LOL was my overall reaction .......... :lol: and I thought I was helping you.......anyway thanks for the thought! You remember how I started this round? "We been at it before and know each other's position very well". So still dont know how you allowed this fallacy of help to creep in your mind?
I think fatigue and irritants in your thinking/mental framework are wearing you out which manifest itself in increasingly insulting tone in your posts, especially this one. So, you better stop it now/here.
Now please let me be a little harsh with you and a bit direct in my point and that is, being atheist and agnostic type of rational in matter of faith affords an easy life sans any discipline, sans any sense of accountability. Perhaps it is most easiest of the ways to kill any compunctions from a nagging conscience. It affords to pick and choose at will while submitting to a faith, any faith -- at least in theory -- does not have this luxury.
How can a slave of five-senses develop the capacity to interpret and appreciate para-sensory sources of knowledge? That is another dimension for you to ponder upon. As I said before it is grounded in difference in instincts!
My post did sound rude but it was because of dealing with the topic and not directed personally at you. Also, the part where I mentioned the white lie - vs. - rational thought wasn't directed at this conversation. So relax.
Again, this conversation is so interesting, that's why I am keeping it rolling. The only sad part it is that typing it isn't the best way to conduct it. Still, I'll try to concisely try my hand at a few blaring flaws in your position.
...the great body of rational and logical knowledge within every religion...
there can only be one answer to this glaring non-truth: "What?!??!?! My foot has more body of rational and logical knowledge than every man-made religion ever, and it's only like a size 11 foot, not even like a basketball players size 15 or something!"
on a serious note, please, please, please show me one logical, rational thing about religion. I hope you're not talking about 'don't steal, don't pillage' kinds of instructions because they're self derivative from one simple rule of 'do unto others...' - I'm talking about the defining things in Islam, Christianity or Judaism etc.
There is no logic or rationale in 'iman-bil-ghaib' which is what most religions are based on. How, I mean how, can you see a great body of logic and reason in something which is founded on the exact opposite of that?
...OK...tell me why few people are gay and great majority is straight/normal? What would you attribute it to?
...I don't know, maybe us 'mulhids' have not had a chance to convert all of them gay yet?...
Joke aside, what I want to point out is that when you ask the wrong kind of questions you can't get to the right kind of truths. What you state is a wrong question and therefore has no answer or can't be explained.
...we have never touched how you define or what qualifies as scientific evidence, population, sample, confidence intervals, etc...
My definition of scientific evidence is the same as what is generally accepted to be. Maybe read
here and
here for a start?
...There are great fallacies to be found in the philosophy of science...
Of course there are when you listen to Zakir Naik, Hamza Tortoise or Molana Tariq Jameel. But how can a self-refining process which exists to wade through ignorance and correct itself on an on-going basis (i.e. science) be regarded as having great fallacies?
Sure, when you evaluate scientific process on subjective, artistic, poetic, metaphysical stadards (which religions are justified on); yes science would seem to be fallacious. But that is like expecting a tomato to fly a boeing 747 and calling it's flying ability fallacious when the plane doesn't arrive at its destination at Las Vegas strip and @desicad's holiday is ruined.
I cringe at the thought that a person writing this on a computer communicating thousands of miles to another still sees more fallacy in science than in the fantastic mythical concoctions of religions.
...being atheist and agnostic type of rational in matter of faith affords an easy life sans any discipline, sans any sense of accountability. Perhaps it is most easiest of the ways to kill any compunctions from a nagging conscience. It affords to pick and choose at will while submitting to a faith, any faith -- at least in theory -- does not have this luxury...
Completely wrong. First of all, Atheists / Agnostics don't rape, pillage and sleep all day. They are regular folk who actually kill less in the name of religion while being equally beneficial citizens as believers in rest of the things. Secondly, if you think that all morality was brought into this world through religion only, then you're assuming too much again. A simple rule of 'do unto others...' get's it done easily. For the rest,
even a comedian knows better.
...para-sensory sources of knowledge...
huh? What are those?
All along the few posts you've been shafting me with the onus of not talking with evidence. However, what I've seen in your few posts is that there is a lot of unproven things like para-sensory knowledge, fallacies of science (without talking about which one) or Atheists leading undisciplined, easy and conscious-free lives.
...this so-called experiment was not worthy of consideration even for a second...
hehe - I knew it man, I knew it. The childhood-brainwashing is strong with this one.
