Please Challenge This Hypothesis

[POI]

After years of debate, one topic seems to remain without waiver and/or adjustment. I'm placing this topic here, in the forefront/spotlight, to expose it to direct challenge. I will be more than happy than to (waiver from/augment/abort) this hypothesis, baring evidence to the contrary....

Hypothesis: The reason most/all believe in (God/gods/higher powers) is because of evolution. Meaning, 'survival of the fitter." Meaning, all humans who favored type 2 errors over type 1 errors are now mostly gone. We inherit our parent's predisposition to invoke type 1 errors, until otherwise logically necessary. Meaning, few will still BECOME atheists after "going to the well enough times" and not seeing God there.

Allow me to explain. In this context, a type 1 error would be first assuming intentional agency, and being wrong -- (good or bad). Alternatively, a type 2 error would be not to first assume intentional agency, and being wrong.

1) Walking down a dirt path, from point A to point B, and hearing a rustle in the weeds, and first assuming danger, would be a type 1 error IF incorrect. This person would still be alive if they are wrong. Maybe it was actually just the wind. Alternatively, if one was to instead first assume no danger, the wind, but there was danger, this person has first committed a type 2 error and is now likely out of the gene pool. And since this has been happening for a long time, we only have the ones who first invoke type 1 errors.

2) Getting in a car wreck with 3 friends.... Your 3 friends die, but you live. You assume you are purposefully spared. IF you are wrong, there is really no harm and no way to know. There is really also no way to confirm you were not spared. Hence, your possible type 1 error is never confirmed/corrected. Which means you can and will continue to attribute agency, where there may not really be any.

In essence, you first assume agency, until proven otherwise. For God, it is never really unproven. Humans connect the dots, accept the hits and ignore the misses, other...

For debate: Is this is viable reason why most believe in a higher power? Is this also why other arguments, against god(s), hardly change the believer's mind?

[1213]

The Bible is an evil and stupid book. Given the number of inaccuracies, contradictions, and evil commands in the Bible, the conclusion is inevitable for me.

Sorry, I disagree with that. I don't think anyone has yet shown a real contradiction in the Bible.

I have, and inaccuracies too, ...

Sorry, I don't think that is true. I don't think you have ever really shown two scriptures that are in contradiction. You may have showed that you have interpretations and ideas that are in contradiction with the Bible.

[POI]

So far, only one believer has responded. Does this mean the rest of the believers who have read this topic: agree, disagree, or are undecided?

[Data]

After years of debate, one topic seems to remain without waiver and/or adjustment. I'm placing this topic here, in the forefront/spotlight, to expose it to direct challenge. I will be more than happy than to (waiver from/augment/abort) this hypothesis, baring evidence to the contrary....

I have no interest in what you do. Waiver from or abort. Unlikely. Augment. I would hope so, but it doesn't matter to me. Why would it? It doesn't even make sense. It's just another way for you to say that if someone doesn't believe what you believe then they are wrong. Nothing else matters.

Hypothesis: The reason most/all believe in (God/gods/higher powers) is because of evolution. Meaning, 'survival of the fitter." Meaning, all humans who favored type 2 errors over type 1 errors are now mostly gone. We inherit our parent's predisposition to invoke type 1 errors, until otherwise logically necessary. Meaning, few will still BECOME atheists after "going to the well enough times" and not seeing God there.

I don't believe atheism exists other than an uninformed concept. Philosophy, if you will. But that doesn't matter - much. Before you make your hypothesis, you have to make an observation and ask a question. What exactly are those?

Allow me to explain. In this context, a type 1 error would be first assuming intentional agency, and being wrong -- (good or bad). Alternatively, a type 2 error would be not to first assume intentional agency, and being wrong.

1) Walking down a dirt path, from point A to point B, and hearing a rustle in the weeds, and first assuming danger, would be a type 1 error IF incorrect. This person would still be alive if they are wrong. Maybe it was actually just the wind. Alternatively, if one was to instead first assume no danger, the wind, but there was danger, this person has first committed a type 2 error and is now likely out of the gene pool. And since this has been happening for a long time, we only have the ones who first invoke type 1 errors.

Are you suggesting that if you hear a noise and it turns out to be nothing from then on you can assume any noise you hear is nothing. And the people making those assumptions are the ones who have survived?

2) Getting in a car wreck with 3 friends.... Your 3 friends die, but you live. You assume you are purposefully spared. IF you are wrong, there is really no harm and no way to know. There is really also no way to confirm you were not spared. Hence, your possible type 1 error is never confirmed/corrected. Which means you can and will continue to attribute agency, where there may not really be any.

Wouldn't that just be stupidity? How would the stupid people fare any better than the non-stupid people?

In essence, you first assume agency, until proven otherwise. For God, it is never really unproven. Humans connect the dots, accept the hits and ignore the misses, other...

Of course, it's proven. Your error is making the assumption they aren't getting what they want out of it.

For debate: Is this is viable reason why most believe in a higher power? Is this also why other arguments, against god(s), hardly change the believer's mind?

The thing that bothers me about this - the most - is that it's like you're looking through a keyhole.

[Data]

If I had your genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences I would have typed the post you typed when and where you typed it. If you had my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences you would be typing this post when and where I am typing this post.

That's because in such a case you would be him/her.

[TRANSPONDER]

The Bible is an evil and stupid book. Given the number of inaccuracies, contradictions, and evil commands in the Bible, the conclusion is inevitable for me.

Sorry, I disagree with that. I don't think anyone has yet shown a real contradiction in the Bible.

I have, and inaccuracies too, ...

Sorry, I don't think that is true. I don't think you have ever really shown two scriptures that are in contradiction. You may have showed that you have interpretations and ideas that are in contradiction with the Bible.

Clearly I have and you have just denied everything. We can go on like this forever. However, your denial means nothing. It who has the better and more convincing case to present to those who see it and still have an open mind. So your denial is irrelevant.

[Data]

The Bible is an evil and stupid book. Given the number of inaccuracies, contradictions, and evil commands in the Bible, the conclusion is inevitable for me.

Sorry, I disagree with that. I don't think anyone has yet shown a real contradiction in the Bible.

I have, and inaccuracies too, ...

Sorry, I don't think that is true. I don't think you have ever really shown two scriptures that are in contradiction. You may have showed that you have interpretations and ideas that are in contradiction with the Bible.

Clearly I have and you have just denied everything. We can go on like this forever. However, your denial means nothing. It who has the better and more convincing case to present to those who see it and still have an open mind. So your denial is irrelevant.

So is yours. And mine. Everyone's.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Data in post #23]

At least it's a response and you and our pal 1213 are keeping the discussion (at large going). Just two minor comments. The fight or flight instinct is real and well known. The sentry who fires at nothing at night is a well known problem. The imagination can play tricks and a bush that was ignored during the day can become an enemy advancing with a pitchfork. Knowing that the mind plays such tricks may help a bit, but instinct is powerful.

As to atheism as an uninformed concept. In essence it can be. There are many 'don't care -ists'. And those (I conclude) are the targets of the well crafted evangelical packages. We have seen our other valued contributor JW produce some explanations that would fox if not persuade the average nonbelieving householder fool enough to open the door. Just take the Passover contradiction (Thursday or Saturday?) and what a job he did on arguing that the priests could eat Passover at any time during the week. How can the bod in the street argue with that? It is improbable but where can you disprove it?

That said, for the atheist who knows what they are about, they are far from uninformed and can often take the Bible apologist to pieces, not that they ever admit it and I won't post the Black Knight yet again.

The Bible is an evil and stupid book. Given the number of inaccuracies, contradictions, and evil commands in the Bible, the conclusion is inevitable for me.

Sorry, I disagree with that. I don't think anyone has yet shown a real contradiction in the Bible.

I have, and inaccuracies too, ...

Sorry, I don't think that is true. I don't think you have ever really shown two scriptures that are in contradiction. You may have showed that you have interpretations and ideas that are in contradiction with the Bible.

Clearly I have and you have just denied everything. We can go on like this forever. However, your denial means nothing. It who has the better and more convincing case to present to those who see it and still have an open mind. So your denial is irrelevant.

So is yours.

To you it of course but as I say - it doesn't matter. I rely on a sound case, not denial. The problem is, and always has been, the public; whether they hear and whether they listen.

[1213]

Clearly I have and you have just denied everything. ...

Please show two scriptures from the Bible that you think are contradictory.

[Data]

As to atheism as an uninformed concept. In essence it can be. There are many 'don't care -ists'. And those (I conclude) are the targets of the well crafted evangelical packages. We have seen our other valued contributor JW produce some explanations that would fox if not persuade the average nonbelieving householder fool enough to open the door. Just take the Passover contradiction (Thursday or Saturday?) and what a job he did on arguing that the priests could eat Passover at any time during the week. How can the bod in the street argue with that? It is improbable but where can you disprove it?

I would agree with and trust JW's and other JWs knowledge more than anyone else's.

I have, and inaccuracies too, ...

The Bible is the uninspired translation of the inspired word of God. It was important for the Bible writers to get it right because it talks to specific people in a specific time and place under specific circumstances. For those reading it later it didn't have to be right and the people translating it were not inspired. We simply use it as an example. Most alleged contradictions like you see skeptics point out are misunderstandings, mistranslations et cetera. They can be resolved reasonably, but there are contradictions, mostly having to do with numerical copyist errors. Numbers are more difficult. There are also spurious portions that only appear in later manuscripts.

Clearly I have and you have just denied everything. We can go on like this forever. However, your denial means nothing. It who has the better and more convincing case to present to those who see it and still have an open mind. So your denial is irrelevant.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they deny some infallible truth. Your case more often than not seems to depend on that faulty premise.

To you it of course but as I say - it doesn't matter. I rely on a sound case, not denial. The problem is, and always has been, the public; whether they hear and whether they listen.

Members are listed unless they select not to be in the user panel. Bots are listed only if the sender wants them to be recognized. Google, Yahoo, etc. Guests are mostly bots who aren't identified. Most human guests follow a link but their visit is under 1 second. Imagine inadvertantly following a link where the people seem to be in an endless battle of egos. A clash of world views that you are not interested in. How petty and silly we look. Your perspective isn't realistic.

[POI]

Are you suggesting that if you hear a noise and it turns out to be nothing from then on you can assume any noise you hear is nothing. And the people making those assumptions are the ones who have survived?

No. I think we all continue to make type 1 errors all the time. But these errors are benign, or not usually harmful. Hence, we will always make them. We invoke agency, in both 'good' and 'bad', in error, quite often. I think this is, in part, why I still (could) be a deist at times. After much study, my logic tells me nothing intelligent, or that any agency that desires me, is there. But the "evolutionary" part within me always still makes me wonder.

Of course, it's proven.

Thanks. So, I guess we may be done here.

Your error is making the assumption they aren't getting what they want out of it.

Sure, but not-so-fast. We have people invoking agency with countless differing 'god(s)'/other. They cannot all be right, but they could all certainly be mistaken. But I guess it is likely unfalsifiable, which is why you can so easily tell me I might be mistaken.

For debate: Is this is viable reason why most believe in a higher power? Is this also why other arguments, against god(s), hardly change the believer's mind?

The thing that bothers me about this - the most - is that it's like you're looking through a keyhole.

This response adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.