[Vision2020] About Evidence

Tue Jul 17 16:54:17 PDT 2012

The problem is this:  Beliefs determine values and behavior.

Hence it is important that that beliefs be as accurate as possible.  We
don't successfully send people to the moon based on fantasy, untested,
and/or untestable theories.  Nor do we inject people with various serums to
prevent and/or cure disease successfully based on fantasy, untested, or
untestable theories.  Etc.

How do we find successful values/behaviors to solve problems, including
social issues?  By considering relevant declarative statements as knowledge
claims and insisting on evidence that can be tested and retested be
provided to support those claims.

There are always alternative theories, especially about social issues.
However cumbersome, and sometimes with many missteps, demanding the testing
of knowledge claims generally winnows out the ones in error.

There are a multitude of various religions and sects of the same religion
world.  Each inconsistent with each other in significant ways.  Each has
some very adamant adherents who believe their view of the world is correct,
and those work, sometimes violently, to proscribe the behavior of all the
rest of us.

Currently, the issue of whether to legalize marriage between couples of the
same gender is an example of a particular set of religious persons
attempting to proscribe the behavior of all based on their interpretation
of and their belief in the truth of the ancient writings to which they
subscribe.

The problem, of course, is that so far there has been no successful method
to determine which, if any, of the multitude of religious beliefs are
true.  The inference among others is that if there is a benevolent god, why
is it keeping the truth so unfathomable and unclear.  Another inference is
that the untestable is hardly a successful solution to practical behavioral
issues/problems.

As a nonbeliever, I strive to base my behavioral decisions based on as
accurate knowledge claims as possible.  I resent being told what I can do,
and resent what others are told what to do based on what can most
charitably be called in the starkness of requiring knowledge claims to be
supported merely religious fantasies and superstitions.

I believe that this position is similar to most nonbelievers.

Why do I harp on it?  Take the above and add:

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."  --Wendall Phillips

Failing to express the problems of religious belief and the problems of
such that plague humankind is the same as tacitly approving the
dictatorship of untestable and harmful fantasies.

w.

On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>wrote:

>  The God Damned Atheists can be more annoying than Fundys.  I think anyone
> who tries to push their religion (or lack thereof) on anyone else is a
> complete phony.  If you really believe in God (or don't) you should be
> secure in that belief such that you don't need to convince anyone else of
> this.  If you're an atheist only you know what's in your heart, otherwise
> only you and God know what's in your heart.
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 07:08:54 -0700
> From: art.deco.studios at gmail.com
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: [Vision2020] About Evidence
>
>
> Atheism and Critical Thinking (Video)
> http://mysticpolitics.com/atheism-and-critical-thinking-video/<http://www.printfriendly.com/print/v2?url=http://mysticpolitics.com/atheism-and-critical-thinking-video/>
> July 17, 2012
> *A series of videos from UK artist and secular humanist QualiaSoup<http://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup>discussing critical thinking, science, philosophy and the natural world.
> *
> Part 1 – *The burden of proof*; Makers of supernatural claims have an
> inescapable burden of proof.
>
> Part 2 - *Lack of belief in gods*; Explaining the concept, refuting
> common objections and giving a number of reasons that atheists are
> sometimes ‘fervent’.
>
> Part 3 - *Critical Thinking*; A look at some of the principles of
> critical thinking.
>
> Part 4 - *Putting faith in its place*; Faith has no place demanding
> agreement or punishing disagreement.
>
> Part 5 - *Open-mindedness*; A look at some of the flawed thinking that
> prompts people who believe in certain non-scientific concepts to advise
> others who don’t to be more open-minded.
>
> Part 6 - *Arguing with ghosts*; A brief look at the pointless exercise of
> telling people, rather than asking them, what they believe.
>
> Part 7 - *It *could* just be coincidence*; This video shows how
> probability theory is sufficient to explain even seemingly remarkable
> coincidences.
>
> Part 8 - *Skewed views of science*; A look at the pitfalls of arguing
> against science from incomprehension or emotion.
>
> Part 9 - *The faith cake*; This video challenges the claim that a belief
> in science requires equal faith to the belief in a god.
>
> Part 10 - *In the beginning, God created injustice*; The impossible
> situation of Adam and Eve, and the unjust treatment they suffered from the
> ‘merciful and loving’ god.
> Part 11 - *Hell: an excessive punishment*; Some believe atheists deserve
> an infinitely grislier fate than this, simply for doubting the existence of
> a being that doesn’t openly present itself. I’ve always been curious about
> that.
>
> ________________________
>
> --
> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
> art.deco.studios at gmail.com
>
>
>
>
> ======================================================= List services made
> available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse
> since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com=======================================================
>

-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120717/73fedc35/attachment.html>