Jeez. Do you have to be so belligerent about being smarter than me?

I'm not prepared to conclude I am smarter than you, as I only have two data points (posts) to go by...

I don't remember saying it didn't...

Yes, it's intrinsic and not necessarily obvious in this type of argument. As is often the case, the underlying premises need to be surfaced to properly evaluate it.

Take a look at this, as likely relevant, whether or not you've thought about it in detail.

Carter's SAP and Barrow and Tipler's WAP have been dismissed as truisms or trivial tautologies, that is, statements true solely by virtue of their logical form (the conclusion is identical to the premise) and not because a substantive claim is made and supported by observation of reality. As such, they are criticized as an elaborate way of saying "if things were different, they would be different," which is a valid statement, but does not make a claim of some factual alternative over another.

That seems to be the core of this issue with what you are saying, and arguments of this type in general. Indeed, if things were different, they would have been different. But in fact things are they way they actually are. That we might not have perceived them in the same way, or at all, if things were different, doesn't actually matter.

Models like evolution?

Yes, and in fact evolution is -also- supported by the evidence of how things are. My point being that the anthropic argument doesn't actually argue for or against either that or "creationism" (another point of contention we'd probably have, and will avoid in the interests of brevity, but invariably arguments end up being of the form of "six day creation is unscientific, therefore... mumble mumble... all religion is unscientific") . I have no issue with "evolution occurs", but do with "-only- evolution occurs". The latter assertion is untestable and unscientific, and the fact atheists need to use that implication on a personal level when using the term "evolution" doesn't change that.

Again, not something I recall saying. Anyway, weren't some ancients pretty hot on the idea of direct intervention being required for all manner of other things, like the sun coming up in the morning, or the end of winter?

I inferred this in terms of your apparent basic stance of considering science to be a process of "closing gaps" of the erroneous notions of historical religions. I suggest actually reviewing the defining documents of presently-existing religions (the ones that you or I actually care about), would show this doesn't really characterize history. Events that were everyday events were written about as if they were, and miraculous events were considered so in the same way as we would today. That is, there hasn't been a broad change in viewpoint on whether a given event would be of a non-miraculous or miraculous nature between then and now. That doesn't change even if you don't believe miracles occur--the present-day response would likely be "yes, that would be a miracle, but I don't believe it actually ever happened" rather than "it makes sense that the ancients would think that turning water into wine would be a miracle, but now because of science we know it actually happened because of X, and nowadays we wouldn't even think of that as a miracle".

Never read him.

His "memes" have been particularly effective, then...

Why don't you try not being such a condescending dick to people just because you think you know better than they do?

Avoiding suboptimal advocacy, really, which is probably the best you've encountered due to "Christian niceness". You are one out of many people who will read this, and direct, or "aggressive", refutation is most memorable. By tomorrow, you will have forgotten my username, if you even took note of it in he first place. My argument, though, maybe not. The contention between you on I on a personal level for this post doesn't matter in the long run, and isn't even really relevant to my purposes or the purposes of an internet forum. Don't take it personally.

I despise these quasi "anthropic principle" arguments that explain precisely why they are wrong, and then triumphantly declare thereby they are right.

No, it remains the case that causality works forward. It remains the case that things existing means evidence for models of how they could get that way.

Note that reality, as well as empirical science, demonstrates that the results are not a lump of goo. You can correct your reasoning as needed from there.

And no, the "gap" exists only in your willfully irrational mind. That a detailed scientific understanding of a phenomenon exists, or does not exist, has zero relevance to whether or not there is -also- a broader causal sequence involved, god or otherwise. Nobody, ever, thought that a direct intervention of a god was needed for fire to cook their food, for water to roll downhill, or for a knife to cut something. No "gap" was filled, for anyone, at any point of scientific refinement of the particular physical processes involved in these, or any other scientific discovery. Fanciful revisionist history notwithstanding. Yes, we know more details. No, that has no relevance to one's view of how those details came to be.

"O, Almighty God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee!"
--Johannes Kepler

That's what a scientist and theist actually thinks about causal specifics. Try recognizing historical reality rather than parroting your Dawkins paperback.

As for "by whose standards", the answer is, yours. Before you misrepresent you own brain's evaluation, which you can't help confessing doing by your inability to remain indifferent about a question that, objectively, you should be indifferent about, if you actually considered the complexity unremarkable.

Eh forget it. With the complete failure of Slashdot metamoderation and the increasing blatant intellectual dishonesty of the mods here, Slashdot has become worthless for useful discussion.

Merry Christmas, all.

Do I explain "citing primary sources" or "post hoc ergo propter hoc" first?

You toss a powerful magnet at a brain and you can shut off emotions, shut off senses, distort them and induce them... what makes you think the brain dying is any less traumatic than changing the flow of electricity in one portion?

I made no claim it is less traumatic. What is relevant is the high specificity of the results of the trauma, as quantified by the study. If the perceptions were random, say in the case of LSD, hitting someone in the head repeatedly with a rock, or random magnetic stimulation, I would agree the evidence would be very weak. They are not random. They correlate strongly with exactly what the religion predicts.

You are incompetent in literally every field you address. Why are you posting to Slashdot?

1. Your definition of "psychosis" is wrong. Check the DSM, or any actual professional in the field, that is, what science says.

2. There is nothing "obvious" about the notion there is not a God, feel free to share the special insight you have superseding thousands of years of theology, philosophy, and science demonstrating clearly it is not "obvious".

3. Even if it were "obvious", the notion it is therefore "psychosis" is nonsense. Once can name innumerable instances of something being claimed to be "obvious" for which disregarding it is not "psychosis"--say, choosing to drink and drive despite the consequences. Say, buying overpriced products. Say, being Republican or Democrat, viewed from the other side.

In short, you are being irrational. In short, something is indeed wrong here with mental functioning. The person exhibiting this would be you.

But if you truly feel there is a god, then obviously your sense of reality is wrong and this is what psychosis is about.

Back your absolutely nonsensical arbitrary claim here.

It would be called "science" by people like you, who fail to understand that nothing in science is "proven", it is a collection of models that are always provisional and permanently open to revision based on future data.

Still, say, one's preferences in art... do you object that those aren't "proven" and therefore aren't "science"--and what do you conclude from that?

This would be why you make sure you always argue with theists who reject evolution, I'll bet.

Which, for the record, is a minority of them. Unless you mean people who mean by "evolution" the irrational non-sequitur of "evolution is true, therefore there is no God" or other "often, therefore always" notions of evolutionary change.

Happy holidays, do enjoy your pet false dichotomy this festive season.

Such an imaginary construct does indeed fit the definition of psychosis by DSM

No, it doesn't. You are simply making that claim up. At worst, the religion could be incorrect. It could not be a "psychosis". Silly anti-science rhetorical amplification doesn't really add anything to your argument here.

As for your "enabling" claim, to what to you attribute the historical bloodbath existing previous to the presence of any religion, which undeniably according to your model, is the one-and-only reason you exist in the evolved form you do? What do you blame for these moral objections then? And while you're add it, on what basis are you implying such an objection, from -your- model?

Incidentally, maybe you can help me with a discussion with an acquaintance of mine. He has a philosophy he calls "fooism", and though it is suitably undefined and lacking in any actual demographic to compare with, and thus he can point out way more negative things done in the name of theism, he can also point out way more negative things done by atheism than fooism. Seems that when you have no admitted responsible adherents to your philosophy, other ones can be blamed for way more things, relatively. As an atheist, do you have some defense for how many more abhorrent things were done in the name of atheism than fooism? He's waiting.

Again, whether it constitutes "proof" is irrelevant. However, one does have reason to consider as evidence the decidedly non-random nature of the "hallucinations" supposedly caused by brain failure (try to short out your computer and see if you suddenly get presented with a new 3D MMO, for example), which correlate very highly with the religious model's predictions.

Formally, though I understand your statement is a Bare Assertion Fallacy troll, it is factually and scientifically incorrect to claim it is a "psychosis". Formally, per the actual field you clearly have no knowledge of, a position that the majority of a culture subscribes to cannot be a "psychosis", per the DSM. Your use (and Dawkins', who you parrot) is simply scientifically and factually false.

I could go on, but rather I'll leave you with a challenge. Predict the upper-bound of the lifespan of a man for the -next- 2500 years. Let's see how you rate compare to the goat herders.

If religious people had any proof, it would no longer be religion.

Sure it would. Why would the definition of "religion" change? I mean, the real one, not the Dawkins made-up one.

But, "proof" (clever of you to goalpost-shift this up front to a criteria virtually nothing, including science, can meet, by the way) would be tantamount to worldwide forced conversion. You'd either have to accept it, or go to an asylum for denying basic proven facts. Might you see a reason a God would not want that, particularly in this era of global communication?

That said, to use reasonable epistemological criteria, here's peer-reviewed evidence. As with most domains, -evidence-, not -proof-, is the intellectually-honest expectation.

So, you're refuting religion in general with a principle of a religion Lucas made up, stating as an absolute that only religion deals in absolutes?

Just checking here.

http://www.gamedev.net/