HOME | DD

Description
I'm not directly answering the question of whether claims for or against God are right/wrong. What I AM saying, however, is the existence of God is often summed up according to how individuals react to the evidence and data they find.

Scenario Case: X: two alleged people, studying the same field find the same data of (X). One feels like it points to one criteria, and the other feels like it points away to nothing or another criteria. So how can that possibly happen?

Now look back over Scenario Case X , and replace the (X) with (the existence of an Intelligent Designer).

What I have observed about people (including scientists) in their talks on their particular research, I find that those participating in the same fields often disagree among st them about their studies. This is an observation that can't be disregarded without looking at the whole reactive effects of human psychology (Scientists have a human brain and still have human tendencies and faults, no matter how intelligent they are).

So again, how do they have the same evidence but have differing conclusions? I have come to find the answer is actually quite simple: the position the individual holds onto (Christian, Diest/Theist, Agnostic, Atheist, Pagan, etc.) will often determine the way they see the evidence in his/her study/science.

Psychologists determined this kind of behavior as symptoms of one or more of the following phenomenons:

CONFIRMATION BIAS (the tendency of people to search for and interpret evidence selectively, to reinforce their current beliefs or attitudes.)
BELIEF POLARIZATION (a disagreement becomes more extreme as the different parties consider evidence on the issue.)
ILLUSORY CORRELATION (tendency to see non-existent correlations in a set of data.)
GROUP POLARIZATION (people are likely to accept the position that they believe their group holds, even when they've only just joined the group)

All these have been diagnosed for years among many studies and testings by both psychologists, sociologists and philosophers.
I actually find evidence of this psychological stuff happening ALL OVER THE PLACE. Can you find them?
Now, how do I react to this information? Could I just be fooling myself? It really depends on what the evidence itself suggests.

Personally, I take atheistic arguments about the existence of God seriously and try as hard as I possibly can to look at it from the atheists point of view. What disturbs me is that majority of atheists honestly do not take the Christians arguments very seriously, so I find an imbalance when it comes to being "open-minded" and "free-thinking":

Those claiming that God does exist have the responsibility for giving us reasons and/or evidence as to how they have come to that conclusion. Otherwise, their whole individual belief would be psychologically self-refuting. In turn they have the right to ask for evidence opposing their claim.

That also means those claiming that God doesn't exist DO have the responsibility for giving us reasons and/or evidence as to how they have come to that conclusion. Otherwise, their whole individual belief would be psychologically self-refuting. They also have the right to ask for evidence opposing their claim.

*LE GASP* LOOK AT THIS! DO YOU SEE SOMETHING WRONG HERE? DO YOU SEE SOMEONE HERE NOT WILLING TO SHARE ANY INTELLECTUAL AND LOGICAL RESPONSIBILITIES?

Now, does this mean that they know what they are doing? My answer is an "eh, maybe". I have found that individuals often go through what the pychologists term as "auto-processing", which means that people do not always intentionally stage fake data, but do so without them realizing.

Often times, it's not like that. Don't believe me? Here are a few things to keep in mind:

Haeckel’s famous (infamous) set of 24 drawings purporting to show eight different embryos in three stages of development -- lacking the evidence, Haeckel fraudulently changed drawings made by other scientists of human and dog embryos, to increase the resemblance between them and to hide the dissimilarities, all in an attempt to further the theory of evolution.

Nebraska man, Piltdown man, Java man, Orce man, Neanderthal -- all were considered missing links in the evolution of humanity. Though in all honesty, they were either faked or confused from another animal.

A study recorded the symptoms experienced by arthritic patients, along with weather conditions over a 15-month period. Nearly all the patients reported that their pains were correlated with weather conditions, although the real correlation was zero.

In the 1960's, a study of Rorschach inkblot tests on homosexual men reported that the homosexual men in the set were more likely to report seeing buttocks, anuses or sexually ambiguous figures in the inkblots. In fact, the case studies were fictional and, in one version of the experiment, had been constructed so that the homosexual men were less likely to report this imagery.

Check out these links! I think you will find them VERY interesting
[link]
[link]
[link]

"I know that most men—not only those considered clever, but even those who are very clever, and capable of understanding most difficult scientific, mathematical, or philosophic problems—can very seldom discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as to oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with much difficulty—conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they have built their lives."-- Tolstoy, Leo. What is Art? p. 124 (1899)

Other Stamps

Description
I'm not directly answering the question of whether claims for or against God are right/wrong. What I AM saying, however, is the existence of God is often summed up according to how individuals react to the evidence and data they find.

Scenario Case: X: two alleged people, studying the same field find the same data of (X). One feels like it points to one criteria, and the other feels like it points away to nothing or another criteria. So how can that possibly happen?

Now look back over Scenario Case X , and replace the (X) with (the existence of an Intelligent Designer).

What I have observed about people (including scientists) in their talks on their particular research, I find that those participating in the same fields often disagree among st them about their studies. This is an observation that can't be disregarded without looking at the whole reactive effects of human psychology (Scientists have a human brain and still have human tendencies and faults, no matter how intelligent they are).

So again, how do they have the same evidence but have differing conclusions? I have come to find the answer is actually quite simple: the position the individual holds onto (Christian, Diest/Theist, Agnostic, Atheist, Pagan, etc.) will often determine the way they see the evidence in his/her study/science.

Psychologists determined this kind of behavior as symptoms of one or more of the following phenomenons:

CONFIRMATION BIAS (the tendency of people to search for and interpret evidence selectively, to reinforce their current beliefs or attitudes.)
BELIEF POLARIZATION (a disagreement becomes more extreme as the different parties consider evidence on the issue.)
ILLUSORY CORRELATION (tendency to see non-existent correlations in a set of data.)
GROUP POLARIZATION (people are likely to accept the position that they believe their group holds, even when they've only just joined the group)

All these have been diagnosed for years among many studies and testings by both psychologists, sociologists and philosophers.
I actually find evidence of this psychological stuff happening ALL OVER THE PLACE. Can you find them?
Now, how do I react to this information? Could I just be fooling myself? It really depends on what the evidence itself suggests.

Personally, I take atheistic arguments about the existence of God seriously and try as hard as I possibly can to look at it from the atheists point of view. What disturbs me is that majority of atheists honestly do not take the Christians arguments very seriously, so I find an imbalance when it comes to being "open-minded" and "free-thinking":

Those claiming that God does exist have the responsibility for giving us reasons and/or evidence as to how they have come to that conclusion. Otherwise, their whole individual belief would be psychologically self-refuting. In turn they have the right to ask for evidence opposing their claim.

That also means those claiming that God doesn't exist DO have the responsibility for giving us reasons and/or evidence as to how they have come to that conclusion. Otherwise, their whole individual belief would be psychologically self-refuting. They also have the right to ask for evidence opposing their claim.

*LE GASP* LOOK AT THIS! DO YOU SEE SOMETHING WRONG HERE? DO YOU SEE SOMEONE HERE NOT WILLING TO SHARE ANY INTELLECTUAL AND LOGICAL RESPONSIBILITIES?

Now, does this mean that they know what they are doing? My answer is an "eh, maybe". I have found that individuals often go through what the pychologists term as "auto-processing", which means that people do not always intentionally stage fake data, but do so without them realizing.

Often times, it's not like that. Don't believe me? Here are a few things to keep in mind:

Haeckel’s famous (infamous) set of 24 drawings purporting to show eight different embryos in three stages of development -- lacking the evidence, Haeckel fraudulently changed drawings made by other scientists of human and dog embryos, to increase the resemblance between them and to hide the dissimilarities, all in an attempt to further the theory of evolution.

Nebraska man, Piltdown man, Java man, Orce man, Neanderthal -- all were considered missing links in the evolution of humanity. Though in all honesty, they were either faked or confused from another animal.

A study recorded the symptoms experienced by arthritic patients, along with weather conditions over a 15-month period. Nearly all the patients reported that their pains were correlated with weather conditions, although the real correlation was zero.

In the 1960's, a study of Rorschach inkblot tests on homosexual men reported that the homosexual men in the set were more likely to report seeing buttocks, anuses or sexually ambiguous figures in the inkblots. In fact, the case studies were fictional and, in one version of the experiment, had been constructed so that the homosexual men were less likely to report this imagery.

Check out these links! I think you will find them VERY interesting
[link]
[link]
[link]

"I know that most men—not only those considered clever, but even those who are very clever, and capable of understanding most difficult scientific, mathematical, or philosophic problems—can very seldom discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as to oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with much difficulty—conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they have built their lives."-- Tolstoy, Leo. What is Art? p. 124 (1899)

Other Stamps