(May 11, 2011 at 8:27 am)Gawdzilla Wrote:

(May 11, 2011 at 8:25 am)tackattack Wrote: Everyone has a bias, and it's usually emotional by nature. I know of no one except a computer AI that can claim no bias, but that's usually been programmed with some bias. Slander, libel and calumny are specifically taught against in Christianity, unfortunately, peeople more ofthen than not, only use and see what they want to and what furthers their own intentions.

So that justifies them using it against a scientific process? Really?

no of course not. Bias is a part of the scientific process. I seek to overcome it at every opportunity, as do you. I wasn't justifying, but explaining. It does make me upset when blatant emotionalism is used to defend or retort evidence or logical arguements. It is unfortunate that it happens so often on both sides.

(May 11, 2011 at 9:19 am)tackattack Wrote: It is unfortunate that it happens so often on both sides.

Show me.

A large universe with millions of planets allows sufficient permutations of conditions which can spawn life. But that aside. Even if you say that it is simply irrational to think that it happens on its own, I still do not understand the leap that god did it. Not just any god, your god.

---

Even if we are 100% wrong in our theories about how life began, which is doubtful, how is the worlds oldest hypothesis a better explanation? Did we not believe a god hurled lightning bolts down at us until we discovered static discharges in the atmosphere? Did we not once speculate that raindrops were once distraught goddesses weeping over lost lovers before we understood the process? One deity or another was always directly responsible for whatever phenomenon we could not explain until someone did. If we were wrong about those assumptions based on our ignorance, isnt it safe to assume that we are wrong in our original assumption that some supreme being is directly responsible for life

@Gawdzilla-
I know of few heuristic processes that don't include cognitive bias. I'm not implying that it has to be so skewed as to deny evidence or break "realism", but do I really need to cite you examples/references for cognitive bias in both theist and atheists?

(May 11, 2011 at 11:27 am)tackattack Wrote: @Gawdzilla-
I know of few heuristic processes that don't include cognitive bias. I'm not implying that it has to be so skewed as to deny evidence or break "realism", but do I really need to cite you examples/references for cognitive bias in both theist and atheists?

Why?

@Gawdzilla- Why? Because you asked me to show you? Or are you asking where is there congitive bias?

(May 11, 2011 at 11:38 am)tackattack Wrote: @Gawdzilla- Why? Because you asked me to show you? Or are you asking where is there congitive bias?

Either/or.

Here's a list
This is just wiki list, but this forum as tons of others are are rife with all kinds of bias, it's almost inescapable. With your vague and uninformative line of questioning I see you are atempting to not fall into any bias. You're also not actually particimpating in the discussion, or providing information. Just because you can now in this brief window not exhibit bias, doens't mean you could sustain that and continue to effectively participate in discussion throughout your life, shall I pull some bias out of some of your posts, or are we done with this waste of my time.

(May 11, 2011 at 11:51 am)tackattack Wrote: Here's a list
This is just wiki list, but this forum as tons of others are are rife with all kinds of bias, it's almost inescapable. With your vague and uninformative line of questioning I see you are atempting to not fall into any bias. You're also not actually particimpating in the discussion, or providing information. Just because you can now in this brief window not exhibit bias, doens't mean you could sustain that and continue to effectively participate in discussion throughout your life, shall I pull some bias out of some of your posts, or are we done with this waste of my time.

You didn't have to answer in the first place.

As an apologetic I'm inclined (read biased) to try and sufficiently answer any question posed. As a realist and agnostic though I'm happy to admit I don't know a lot of things as well.