Questions for theists

[TheBeardedDude]

I always find it quite amusing whenever theists jump to evolution when faced with questions about the validity of their religious doctrine. I still don't see how it follows that if evolution is wrong or makes a statement about nature that you don't find comforting, that this somehow logically leads to the conclusion that religion is correct.

Perhaps instead of asking "How is the bible true?" the question should be "assuming you have picked it up for the first time, how would you come to the conclusion it is true with no one else telling you?"

You could compare that to a biology textbook whereby one could pick it up and duplicate everything in it in order to demonstrate its validity.

[The Reality Salesman01]

That's a great comparison. A theist will be stepping in any minute to say that the two are not analogous, and their reason, of course, will be that the truths of The Bible cannot be tested the way biological facts can. (We of course know this, and it was the point) When pressed to explain how they can know its true then, stand by for a question begging explanation that brings the conversation back to the beginning with full centrifugal force.

[Lion IRC]

Avoiding extinction.
Doing what is competitively necessary to ensure your (selfish) DNA gets passed on.

Just because our DNA is selfish doesn't mean we have to be. My DNA is great, but in the grand scheme of things, it isn't important that I pass it on. I can't recommend adoption to would-be parents enough.

I would be interested to hear more about this dualism which separates our DNA from our better 'self'.

I like the idea that we are something more than our DNA.

[Esquilax]

I would be interested to hear more about this dualism which separates our DNA from our better 'self'.

I like the idea that we are something more than our DNA.

If all you've got is petty double entendres, then perhaps a discussion about science isn't for you?

I'm sure there are plenty of children's shows looking for writers, though!

[The Reality Salesman01]

Whoops! Missed the mark here. The entire world can think X is better than Y, that doesn't change my opinion that Y is still better.

Try again...

Nope. It's right on target - a bullseye.
Maybe you are happy to ignore the REASON why XXX number of people have determined that X is better than Y.

Sure, you can be the minority of 1 person in the entire world who disagrees. But please don't make the fallacious assumption that the REASON why so many more people THINK something is an irrelevant consideration.

It is completely irrelevant with regards to subjective experience. Whether or not I'm the only person in the world with a certain opinion, if I think chocolate is better than vanilla because it tastes better to me, than it's better to me. There's no evidence you could bring to the table to conclude that I am wrong about my own subjective experience of taste. To say otherwise is completely absurd. Fallcies don't have anything to do with it.

Taking a poll will only show you how many people may agree or disagree, it doesn't make any of them wrong.

Ad Populum would be a fallacy if a majority was intended to support an objective claim such as

"80% of the people in the world agree that the world is flat."

This poll is not at all indicative of the actual shape of the earth. The earth can be observed and measured. Whatever people think is irrelevent in determining the actual shape of the earth. It is either round or it isn't. And whatever the shape actually is, be it round, flat, or otherwise-it will be-whether or not people agree or not. There's nothing subjective about it. There's no circle squares, or flat spheres.
There's no married bachelors or odd versions of the number 2. Opinions have no place in discerning facts.

Your example about cow dung is amusing, and I think we should continue using it here.

If the claim is:

"Cowdung is the best flavor of food."

Well the person making that claim is speaking for nobody but himself. It is true insofar as it is true for them.

Here's where you are getting confused...

If the claim pertaining to cow dung is extended beyond a personal subjective experience of it, and made into an objective claim, such as:

"Cow dung is good for the human body."

Then a case can be made to the contrary. Perhaps a tally of medical professionals that have done research on the negative effects cow dung has when ingested by the human body would be relevant to the conversation. But that's not what we're talking about here.

When it comes to subjectivity, I'm the subject matter expert on what flavor I like. Your poll is useless. The amount of people that may disagree with my personal taste is irrelevent to my subjective experience of it being true. It would only show that preference of taste varies, and that one kind may or may not be more commonly preferred than some other. It illustrates a range of subjectivity pertaining to taste. Ultimately, there is no "absolute taste" that is objectively "better" apart from opinion, as it is opinion that gives meaning to the word "better".


Music, art, taste...these are all a matter of opinion. I'm not sure if you're fucking with me, or you honestly don't understand.

---

I like the idea that we are something more than our DNA.

I don't doubt that you do like that idea. It doesn't make it true however. Perhaps a better understanding of subjective Vs objective will help you hone in on more of the things you've mistaken for being true, simply because you think so or they make you feel good.