Evidence vs. Believe (A Tale of Two Bunnies)

[Delphiki]

Saw this posted on another forum. This is a great analogy for the polarization in this sub-forum and uses cute little bunnies so everyone can understand, too!

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

This is a great comic. It captures the essence of these sorts of debates perfectly.

 

[Greg1234]

pure materialism. the puzzle of science is moving towards a non-mechanical reality of causes. that is away from "but it's a materialistic universe

 

[AV1611VET]

Saw this posted on another forum. This is a great analogy for the polarization in this sub-forum and uses cute little bunnies so everyone can understand, too!

That's cute, but that's not how it works, is it?

Where are the pieces that were used to make Phlogiston?

Where are the six pieces that depict our moon (one showing two moons)?

For every piece on that table that is supposedly in place, how many discarded pieces are under the table; pieces that used to be as clear as that picture of Winnie the Pooh?

 

[Freodin]

That's cute, but that's not how it works, is it?

Where are the pieces that were used to make Phlogiston?

Where are the six pieces that depict our moon (one showing two moons)?

For every piece on that table that is supposedly in place, how many discarded pieces are under the table; pieces that used to be as clear as that picture of Winnie the Pooh?

Just because YOU work that way does not mean everyone else has to do.

But that is your deepest flaw, isn't it? You are simply unable to imagine that other people might not be like you.

 

[Kazenoryu]

That's cute, but that's not how it works, is it?

Where are the pieces that were used to make Phlogiston?

Where are the six pieces that depict our moon (one showing two moons)?

For every piece on that table that is supposedly in place, how many discarded pieces are under the table; pieces that used to be as clear as that picture of Winnie the Pooh?

This is why illustrations only work so far. People who choose to ignore how the scientific method works find the perceived flaws in the simplified analogy and try to pick it apart on that basis. The analogy is about not accepting something just for the sake of accepting it, but rather questioning what is said when things don't seem to fit the arbitrary explanation.

 

[Jazer]

Saw this posted on another forum. This is a great analogy for the polarization in this sub-forum and uses cute little bunnies so everyone can understand, too!

Yep all the evidence points in one direction but atheists keep saying that it's something other then what the evidence indicates.

 

[No Time]

Just because YOU work that way does not mean everyone else has to do.

But that is your deepest flaw, isn't it? You are simply unable to imagine that other people might not be like you.

This is why illustrations only work so far. People who choose to ignore how the scientific method works find the perceived flaws in the simplified analogy and try to pick it apart on that basis. The analogy is about not accepting something just for the sake of accepting it, but rather questioning what is said when things don't seem to fit the arbitrary explanation.

You are all forgetting a little thing called 'indoctrination', it's been used since man first started walking on this earth it was first used to keep children alive.

A person who has been indoctrinated can not even see the argument against their indoctrination let alone consider it, it's what indoctrination does,
try telling a devout Muslim that Allah does not exist, they will honestly and truly think you are mad and in their deluded state they may also feel sorry for you because they will not only believe Allah is real they will be convinced that he is.

Suicide bombers are not born suicide bombers they are made suicide bombers.

Indoctrination is like hypnosis we all believe they will not be able to use them on us, when they do we don't believe it, we could not be more wrong.

 

[gaara4158]

That's cute, but that's not how it works, is it?

Where are the pieces that were used to make Phlogiston?

Where are the six pieces that depict our moon (one showing two moons)?

For every piece on that table that is supposedly in place, how many discarded pieces are under the table; pieces that used to be as clear as that picture of Winnie the Pooh?

You wouldn't like to think so.
The pieces that were thought to be phlogiston turned out to be a picture of exothermic reactions once we put the rest of the pieces together.
Same with the moon, Pluto, dinosaurs, and everything else you love to pretend the scientific community is dishonest or clueless about. It's not pieces that are discarded, but rather our preconceptions of what the picture is. We may not have all the pieces to say exactly what it is, but after a certain point it becomes pretty clear what it's not. That's what the metaphor so aptly demonstrates.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not pieces that are discarded, but rather our preconceptions of what the picture is.

The OP is disingenuous though, in that it depicts the duck as clearly visible and conveys the idea that God is just as clearly seen as the reality they are putting together on the table there; when in fact, Paul says:

1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

What the OP is conveying is not only that they have a good grasp on what God should look like, but that reality is so much different than Him, as Winnie the Pooh is from a duck.

This takes atheism to an even deeper low, and I can't state enough how disingenuous this is.

You guys have no clue how God operates, yet you think you can portray Him in a portrait well enough to make a counter-portrait.

I'm not buying it.

The only one truly laughing at this is Satan and his angels, and his laughter is being [falsely] shared with those who are trying to make a false impact statement on us.

 

[juvenissun]

Saw this posted on another forum. This is a great analogy for the polarization in this sub-forum and uses cute little bunnies so everyone can understand, too!

The name of the box is called "science".

 

[AV1611VET]

The name of the box is called "science".

How ironic if those two would be rabbits from the Precambrian, eh?

 

[Nostromo]

The OP is disingenuous though, in that it depicts the duck as clearly visible and conveys the idea that God is just as clearly seen as the reality they are putting together on the table there;

It only seems disingenuous if you take it in such a literal way, but it would be obvious to most people that the OP is a metaphor.

The OP is a perfectly reasonable representation of how <some people> will jump to conclusions about the way things are, and then refuse to accept they might be wrong, even though there was no real reason to think they were right in the first place.

 

[AV1611VET]

The OP is a perfectly reasonable representation of how <some people> will jump to conclusions about the way things are, and then refuse to accept they might be wrong, even though there was no real reason to think they were right in the first place.

I would expect an atheist to tell us we're wrong ... wouldn't you?

What I don't understand though, is why atheists won't react the exact same way to someone saying Jesus walked on water, to someone saying that, in their opinion, Noah lived in what is now New Jersey.

Have you ever heard an atheist say, "Can you believe that? That guy actually thinks Jesus walked on water!?"

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I would expect an atheist to tell us we're wrong ... wouldn't you?

If you had good reasons for belief that stood up to scrutiny beyond personal subjective experience, then atheists would consider changing sides.

What doesn't count as good reasons are Bible quotes, circular logic, and making up useless concepts to explain away discrepancies between reality and dogma (like embedded age).

What I don't understand though, is why atheists won't react the exact same way to someone saying Jesus walked on water, to someone saying that, in their opinion, Noah lived in what is now New Jersey.

Have you ever heard an atheist say, "Can you believe that? That guy actually thinks Jesus walked on water!?"

While they are equally absurd things for non-believers, at least Jesus walking on water is explicitly in the Bible, whereas Noah residing in New Jersey is not.

 

[Nostromo]

I would expect an atheist to tell us we're wrong ... wouldn't you?

You might expect it since you like to tar all atheists with the same brush, but that would depend on the views of the individual atheist. If you're implying that I said such a thing, show me where.

What I don't understand though, is why atheists won't react the exact same way to someone saying Jesus walked on water, to someone saying that, in their opinion, Noah lived in what is now New Jersey.

Have you ever heard an atheist say, "Can you believe that? That guy actually thinks Jesus walked on water!?"

You don't understand it? Desensitisation, most likely. The more frequently one is exposed to something, the less often it provokes a significant reaction.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you had good reasons for belief that stood up to scrutiny beyond personal subjective experience, then atheists would consider changing sides.

Keyword: good -- right?

What doesn't count as good reasons are Bible quotes, circular logic, and making up useless concepts to explain away discrepancies between reality and dogma (like embedded age).

In other words, nothing?

While they are equally absurd things for non-believers, at least Jesus walking on water is explicitly in the Bible, whereas Noah residing in New Jersey is not.

So? They are, as you said, 'equally absurd' -- yet treated differently.

Thanks for demonstrating my point.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Keyword: good -- right?

In other words, nothing?

You can't use circular logic to demonstrate a point. That's logic 101. If all you have is circular logic and making stuff up, I'm not interested. I would consider Christianity if the Bible was consistent with reality, but it's not. When embedded age is the best you can come up with to harmonize reality and the Bible, I'm not impressed.

So? They are, as you said, 'equally absurd' -- yet treated differently.

Thanks for demonstrating my point.

You missed my point. Walking on water is explicitly in the Bible. We all know the story. You made up the New Jersey business, which is not explicitly in the Bible.

Most of what people are reacting to in the New Jersey story is not the story itself, it's the fact that you made it up.

 

[Delphiki]

The name of the box is called "science".

If that's what you think then you are simply horribly at understanding analogy.

The box represent the bible, or religion. It's making the claim "The puzzle is a duck."

The puzzle is the universe or evidence, which the bunnies put together to find that it is not a duck. But since there's one piece missing at the end, the religious bunny insists that it's still a duck.

The fact that all the creationists in this thread are intentionally misunderstanding the cartoon just shows their dishonesty. Not just toward others but with their selves.

If it's not dishonesty, then it could only be some sort of severe learning disability, and therefore apparent why you would believe such nonsense.

 

[AV1611VET]

What I don't understand though, is why atheists won't react the exact same way to someone saying Jesus walked on water, to someone saying that, in their opinion, Noah lived in what is now New Jersey.

You can't use circular logic to demonstrate a point.

Keyword: circular -- right?

I thought I showed how the Bible is made of 66 books, written over a period of some 1500 years, with the individual books corroborating each other; like science books cross-validating one another?

That's logic 101.

Good.

If all you have is circular logic and making stuff up, I'm not interested.

Thank heavens I don't, eh?

I would consider Christianity if the Bible was consistent with reality...

A reality where Jesus can't walk on water, let alone be born of a virgin, right?

... but it's not.

Exactly what we would expect from a supernatural Book.

When embedded age is the best you can come up with to harmonize reality and the Bible, I'm not impressed.

I have a feeling you don't impress too easily; one can't impress someone who's here to vent.

You missed my point.

At least I'm consistent.

Walking on water is explicitly in the Bible.

-- You're kidding!?

We all know the story.

Good -- and I find you guys' lacks of reaction to it ... ironic.

You made up the New Jersey business, which is not explicitly in the Bible.

As I have a right to do.

Most of what people are reacting to in the New Jersey story is not the story itself, it's the fact that you made it up.

Ya -- had I not done that, I would have had to pull rank and just say "God did it".

But as to your point that we're always being prompted to speak ex Biblica -- then we get accused of being "backwater".

Imagine if all we did was answer you guys' questions with Bible quotes.

Either way, you guys would pout.

We're "brainwashed" if we quote Scripture, and "backwater" if we theorize.

And that suits me just fine.