I already answered that; systematic murder. Kill everyone who doesn’t declare they are religious, you’ll end up with a culture full of people who will all claim to be religious. Keep it up long enough and humans will be bred to be religious like dogs have been bred to be obedient.
well here is where we disagree. I assert that we can know nothing until we believe in certain unprovable assumptions. I am not really sure what you believe about first principles. The question is, is it possible to have knowledge without first having faith in the first principles.
I have no idea where you get this defn of faith. Faith requires that what you believe is false…? not sure what to do with that.
you are able to prove the laws of logic empirically? how?
can you point me to some specific study or experiment?
huh?
I quit. 
thx for the conversation.
I get that from evolution theory. The survival of the fittest. The non religious seem to be an evolutionary dead end for a long time in history.
Why do all the peoples throughout the world become more susceptible to lethal maladies and systemic breakdown as they age? Gee, it’s a mystery. Must be magic.
Ah, anthropomorphisizing evolution. That’s novel. And convincing!
And plenty of traits are fixed in populations regardless of selection pressures. Google “the founder effect.”
Because it doesn’t?
There’s that babbling bluster I’ve pointed out.
No, you don’t.
You get that from a worldview that is wilfully ignorant and a risibly inaccurate view of evolutionary biology.
It’s clear that you have no idea what “fitness” actually refers to. Why don’t you try to define it in an evolutionary context, yes?
Er, no.
You do realize that repeating your same errors over and over and over doesn’t make them correct… right?
You don’t decide what’s true. You don’t decide between truth claims. That you’re suggesting these things points out you don’t understand what you’re saying.
Something is true because it’s true not because you believe in it. It doesn’t matter if everyone believes it or nobody believes it - truth has nothing to do with belief.
Now you can have opinions on all kinds of subjects. You can have an opinion on what’s your favorite color or who’s your favorite football team or what’s good and evil. But when you start claiming that your opinions are true then you’ve gone off track.
this article tells how scientists can see thots in a person’s brain with an MRI. how does this show mind emerging from mere matter?
Let me be clearer. I am asking for an experiment in which scientists observed a mind (in other words, a reasoning object/being) emerge from matter.
this article tells how scientists were able to make rough reconstructions of what a person was viewing by watching computer scans. again…how is this mind emerging from matter?
this article tells how a scientist can tell when a person is lying from a brain scan. Perhaps I wasn’t clear on what I was looking for but it seems to me that if you are going to assert that mind can emerge from matter, then you need an experiment in which you start with mere matter and mind emerges from it with no intelligent force being applied to it. is that fair?
“the founder effect” does not apply to the whole world.
Now who’s giving babbling bluster.
That’s what a human mind is; brain activity.
:dubious: Because what they see is part of their mind.
Sorry When I look at the world through evolutionary lenses I relate the same babbling bluster I hear on PBS or NPR.
I am not clear on what you are saying here. I agree that truth isn’t what people wish were true. Is that what you’re saying? But certainly, we do have to decide between truth claims. Of course, we have to measure truth in these cases by reason. We can’t just pick the one we like best.
ok…we have a different defn of “mind”. I see mind as an immaterial part of the human soul. It’s not something empirically knowable. I take it you believe that mind is a physical or chemical process that takes place in the human brain. ?
In which case, you don’t believe in “mind” as I understand; it and therefore, mind emerging from matter is not an issue for you.
If you can’t observe these things*, then how can you know anything about them? How can you even know they exist?
*Which includes the thing being a logical consequence of something observable, or something observable being a logical consequence of it.
You can’t know they exist. But you can postulate their existence, and you can understand that science is utterly useless as a technique for falsifying the postulate.
And then you learn this lesson; the fact that something cannot be observed, and so cannot be scientifically tested, does not mean that it is unreal, unless you assume that all real things are observable and scientifically testable. And since that assumption is itself not susceptible of scientific validation, where does that leave you?
Belief in a soul is just as baseless and irrational as belief in gods. Nor does the idea of something “immaterial” even being possible make any sense.
Of course it is; you have empirical evidence for minds just by thinking, not to mention talking to people. And even if there was such a thing as an “immaterial” mind, the fact that it interacts with the real, physical body would make it detectable. It has to interact, or you couldn’t talk or act or see.
So you have no idea what the founder effect is, either. So noted
You get three guesses as to which one of us it is.
(hint: it’s not me)
There are no ‘laws of logic’ - there are rules of logic - you don’t have ‘faith’ in rules or laws - you see if/how they work and you use them.
Faith is a ‘belief without evidence’ - Logic is a thought (or argument) process.
You can have trust (faith) in the scientific process, because its been observed to be self correcting.
In another post, you try to point to axioms that are considered true - these are considered that way either to the logic behind them or the observational history makes them so - they are not just ‘thoughts some one starts with’ - to be accepted, they have to be reasonable and logical.
For example -
“Nothing unreal exists” is considered an axiom - it is a default position - it is subject to change as soon as evidence is avaialble to change it - and science is always willing (sometimes kicking and screaming) to change these postions.
You should realize that your quote is from an article on ‘The Philosophy of Science’ which, in and of itself, is not ‘Science’ - further - the second paragraph of the article states -
[QUOTE=Philosophy of science - Wikipedia]
Philosophy of science has historically been met with mixed response from the scientific community. Though scientists often contribute to the field, many prominent scientists have felt that the practical effect on their work is limited.
[/QUOTE]
Starting with an assumption that X exists - without evidence is irrational - it is not logical, it is not reasonable, and it is not provable.
But that is what faith is.
It has nothing to do with logic, reason or rational thought.
Because it shows mind arising from matter, ya know, the human brain?
How is this confusing for you?
Luckily I just cited three.
I am honestly baffled by your lack of comprehension. Is the brain not matter? Do you believe grey matter is made of magic?
[hijack]Er, that’s not correct. That only works if it’s a bi-implication, for normal implication. Given A->B, if B is true, then A may be True or False without constraint. However, if B is false, A must also be false.
A implies B is equivalent to (not A) or B. Wikipedia has a truth table[/hijack]
Perhaps not, but it does mean such a thing can never have any kind impact on your life (because if it did, that would be observable), so there’s really no point in thinking about it.
No such assumption is necessary. Maybe unobservable things exist, but they don’t matter, since they can’t be observed.