Spicey hotness, refreshing and satisfying
I can’t stand atheists — but it’s not because they don’t believe in God. It’s because they’re crashing bores.Other people, most recently the British cultural critic Terry Eagleton in his new book, “Faith, Reason, and Revolution,” take to task such superstar nonbelievers as Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins (“The God Delusion”) and political journalist Christopher Hitchens (“God Is Not Great”) for indulging in a philosophically primitive opposition of faith and reason that assumes that if science can’t prove something, it doesn’t exist.
My problem with atheists is their tiresome — and way old — insistence that they are being oppressed and their fixation with the fine points of Christianity. What — did their Sunday school teachers flog their behinds with a Bible when they were kids? [...]
First off, there’s atheist victimology: Boohoo, everybody hates us ‘cuz we don’t believe in God. Although a recent Pew Forum survey on religion found that 16% of Americans describe themselves as religiously unaffiliated, only 1.6% call themselves atheists, with another 2.4% weighing in as agnostics (a group despised as wishy-washy by atheists). You or I might attribute the low numbers to atheists’ failure to win converts to their unbelief, but atheists say the problem is persecution so relentless that it drives tens of millions of God-deniers into a closet of feigned faith, like gays before Stonewall. [...]
Maybe atheists wouldn’t be so unpopular if they stopped beating the drum until the hide splits on their second-favorite topic: How stupid people are who believe in God. This is a favorite Dawkins theme. In a recent interview with Trina Hoaks, the atheist blogger for the Examiner.com website, Dawkins described religious believers as follows: “They feel uneducated, which they are; often rather stupid, which they are; inferior, which they are; and paranoid about pointy-headed intellectuals from the East Coast looking down on them, which, with some justification, they do.” Thanks, Richard!
Comment by Joe on 5/19 @ 9:21 pm #
I would be more impressed if athiests had more fun. I like Christopher Hitchens and Penn Gillette, but most of the rest of them seem horrible to hang out with.
Comment by Darleen on 5/19 @ 9:24 pm #
I enjoy listening to Hitchens when he doesn’t get on his “god is bad” schtick. He turns obsessive and the dry sense of humor he holds with all other topics is no where to be found.
Comment by SDN on 5/19 @ 9:26 pm #
Christ told believers we would be persecuted, so I’m not really surprised when we are. That said, the government shouldn’t be actively hostile towards religion (or lack of it) in the public square, which they often are lately.
Comment by ginsewa on 5/19 @ 9:27 pm #
I take consolation in the fact that, regardless which of us is right, I will get to spend eternity without ever having to hear any of those schmucks again.
Comment by virgil xenophon on 5/19 @ 9:28 pm #
Agreed. Most atheists are a dour lot indeed–and constantly hectoring SOBs to boot–although I would dearly love and enjoy a good pub crawl with the sort of conversationalist–especially when he’s in his cups–Hitchens is.
Comment by happyfeet on 5/19 @ 9:34 pm #
Richard Dawkins says a lot of things about people that he wouldn’t say to their faces. He’s sort of a pussy. Like Prince Charles or George Stephanopoulos.
Comment by happyfeet on 5/19 @ 9:35 pm #
But not Freddie Prinze Junior who is married to Sarah Michelle Gellar which makes him not at all a pussy like Richard Dawkins.
Comment by mcgruder on 5/19 @ 9:37 pm #
Agreed.
Having been drunk on one occasion in 1999 with Hitchens, piss drunk, his sense of humor extends to all things except God.
Totally off-topic: Hitchens has crapped on Barney Frank since the late-80s, or whenever he got connected to that fixing parking tickets for his boyfriend bit. So when we were at the bar, some earnest gay man came up to him and politely and eloquently disagreed with his take on Barney Frank. Hitch, on his 5th or 6th stoli (he was alternating with red wine), tried to clear up the misunderstanding by telling the fellow that he had no problem with Frank being a faggot but that he felt it was plain to see that Frank was a total cocksucker.
On my fourth pint at the time, for the first time ever, i did a spit take.
Havent seen him in years, and i no longer drink, but a story to cherish to the grave.
Comment by Sdferr on 5/19 @ 9:46 pm #
I’ve long thought it unwise, in the extreme, for these fellows, most of whom I admire for their other works, to speak publicly about their atheism in particular. I just can’t see the value in it, and could easily foresee the treatment they get from the likes of Charlotte Allen, Terry Eagleton, et al. It has been ever thus. Why would it have changed now just because the likelihood of being killed outright over it has so diminished?
Comment by ginsewa on 5/19 @ 9:54 pm #
In their hysteria, it almost looks more like they are trying convince themelves, rather than anyone else. You don’t insult the people you’re trying to reach, if I have my psychology right. In this respect, they resemble the AGW/environmental nutjobs, endless pushing that which they know, deep down, is false. Both groups have all the trappings of religion.
Comment by bh on 5/19 @ 10:09 pm #
I feel horribly conflicted about this post. If I could make a Ven diagram, I’d show how “assholes” and “non-believers” share some space. Then I’d show how “assholes” and “believers” share some space.
Comment by Sdferr on 5/19 @ 10:13 pm #
Yeah, there’s way too much shouting going on for my tastes bh, from both sides of the thing. It just can’t lead anywhere good, I think.
Comment by JD on 5/19 @ 10:14 pm #
bh – My Ven diagram would have the groups named assholes and Barcky and his dirty little socialists be identical overlapping circles.
Comment by Sdferr on 5/19 @ 10:15 pm #
Or, let me put it this way, I like an atheist who can do a better job of exegetical reading of holy texts than 99% of the believers you might meet anywhere, anytime.
Comment by B Moe on 5/19 @ 10:26 pm #
The problem I have with most atheists is they don’t seem to grasp that it isn’t a religion.
Comment by bh on 5/19 @ 10:33 pm #
My main problem with atheists is that they roll their eyes when I mention how mathematics seems to be discovered rather than invented. And, the fact that it’s a coherent system of non-physical truth. Possibly even true without existence. Sdferr, probably feels the same way about the sublime nature of music.
Regardless, they hate agnostics. Which, let’s face it, is just poor manners.
Comment by bh on 5/19 @ 10:34 pm #
Full overlap.
Comment by JD on 5/19 @ 10:36 pm #
Nary a scintilla of difference between them.
Comment by Patrick Chester on 5/19 @ 10:39 pm #
Or it might be they pretend to have faith, just to piss the oh-so-enlightened there-is-NO-god-and-you-are-stupid-if-you-disagree atheists off.
Comment by Adriane on 5/19 @ 11:18 pm #
If I do a DNA test, I can prove who you mother and father are. I, nor you, can ever prove that your mother and father love(d) you.
My mother ran into a burning home to pull me out… No she didn’t, she was looking for her jewelry. You were an after thought. My father worked 2 jobs so as I could go to college … no he didn’t, it was easier to visit his girlfriend if he told your mother he was working late.
There is nothing you can say, that can not be interpreted differently, when it comes to human emotion and/or its expression.
It can not be scientifically proven, therefore, your mother’s and father’s love does not exist.
Comment by psycho... on 5/20 @ 12:13 am #
I am fucking fascinating. So there, lady.
(It sounds like a lady. I’m not checking. Too fascinating for that shit.)
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 12:25 am #
Entirely on topic: notice how Allah baits his readers with this post.
See, that’s the “asshole” and “non-believer” intersection.
Missing links? That’s not really a concept, evolutionarily speaking. Just isn’t. Not even a little. That’s a sign that one gets their science from popularizers rather than, well, scientists.
If Allah was smart, rather than smug, he’d write up an essay on molecular biology and cladistics. He can’t though. He’s just an asshole.
So, I ask. What is more salient? That Allah is an atheist or that Allah is an asshole?
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 12:26 am #
Okay, to bed.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 3:03 am #
In the eternal clash between atheists and believers, one group IS being stupid. One is 100% correct and the other is 0% correct, there can be no partially correct solution. God either is or isn’t. That means, one of those groups firmly believes in a proposition which is entirely wrong and for which no evidence exists. Why do they believe that and how would you go about convincing them otherwise when they are so closely attached to an idea which is entirely made up in their own imagination?
Comment by Kevin B on 5/20 @ 3:35 am #
I tend to dismiss atheists who talk about ‘belief in sky fairies’ and the like or who dismiss all theists as stupid. If they can dismiss thousands of years of man’s study of metaphysics – the effort to discover the meaning of the universe and man’s place in it – as ignorance, then their views aren’t worth considering.
I also quickly dismiss those who go to great lengths to ‘prove’ that fascism and communism are religions in order to support their thesis that religions cause all the troubles of the world.
Then I dismiss those who base their atheism on things like evolution and the ‘Big Bang’. Confusing physics and metaphysics is a category error.
Then I dismiss those, (theists and atheists both), who dismiss agnosticism as a wishy-washy, Pascal’s wager, kind of cop-out. In order to be agnostic one needs to have studied religion to the point of seeeing that it doesn’t answer one’s own questions adequately, then one needs to study atheism to find the same thing. Finally, (well not finally actually – it’s an ongoing search), one needs to read people like Thomas Henry Huxley to discover a philosophy which matches one’s own.
Needless to say, this doesn’t leave me many people to discuss metaphysics with, but those who remain, (theists, atheists and agnostics), are at least worth having a discussion with.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 4:35 am #
Atheism is based on a very simple principle, only that which we can detect is real. Anything not meeting that criteria is essentially fantasy because it can be given as many or as few properties as you like, as none are provable. As god, angels, satan or anything else supernatural cannot be detected there is no reason to believe they are real. They might still be real… but without our ability to detect them we cannot know their properties or even of their existence.
Comment by Salt Lick on 5/20 @ 4:46 am #
Wife’s an atheist; I’m a Christian. We agree that either the universe came from nothing, or that a Creator willed it to come from nothing. And we both agree that anyone who claims they KNOW where it came from — knows it so well they mock other people’s belief — thinks the universe stops with themselves.
Comment by Akatsukami on 5/20 @ 5:12 am #
Both atheistic and theistic fundamentalists annoy me with their evident inability to imagine a God smarter than they are. Although the atheists are more honest, in that they admit that anyone as stupid as they are shouldn’t be allowed to run the universe.
Comment by Carin on 5/20 @ 5:17 am #
I feel horribly conflicted about this post. If I could make a Ven diagram, I’d show how “assholes†and “non-believers†share some space. Then I’d show how “assholes†and “believers†share some space.
I’m thinking that there is no causal relationship between believers/non-believers and “assholes.”
Most of the people who WANT to discuss their non-belief with me usually haven’t thought enough about it to make such a conversation interesting. They sound like 14 y/olds. I assume most people with more mature thoughts on the subject don’t feel it necessary to discuss it with a Catholic.
I’ve always thought that asshole non-believers are assholes about it because they aren’t really their secure in their non-belief. They need validation by attempting to create more non-believers.
Comment by donald on 5/20 @ 5:34 am #
Lemme tell you why there’s no God. The state of Florida cut back the regular high school baseball season to 20 games. 20. You can’t even get warmed up with that. Buncha damned communists I tells ya.
Comment by donald on 5/20 @ 5:35 am #
Whut the hell’s a sky fairy?
Comment by Brett on 5/20 @ 5:42 am #
Oh, come on. Most atheists would be nicer about it if theists would recognize that their opinions on religion are as respectable as any deacons. After all, no one’s position on the subject is falsifiable.
Comment by Lyndsey on 5/20 @ 5:45 am #
I agree with you, Carin–I’ve had conversations with people in which I have said, “I’m okay with your non-belief, why is it an issue for you that I believe?” For some reason, it really matters.
Also, the “religion ruins everything” argument seems one-dimensional to me. Imperfect PEOPLE ruin things. In myriad ways. Believers and non-believers alike and for whatever reason(s) they deem useful. Being human tends to limit our ability to see outside of ourselves sometimes..
Comment by dr kill on 5/20 @ 5:51 am #
Oh dear, another post designed to whip up the unwashed; hair-shirts v. hippies. Do give it a break girl, and get back to something interesting. Is traffic really that slow?
I judge from the lack of enthusiasm detectable in these comments that the rest of your readership is likewise tired of this tired shit.
For the record, my position is this- I will defend to the death your right to believe any stupid, tired shit you wish. And I expect the same from my fellow citizens. Simple, no?
Now STFU and get on with it.
Comment by B Moe on 5/20 @ 6:16 am #
Yes you are.
Comment by meya on 5/20 @ 6:17 am #
“Oh dear, another post designed to whip up the unwashed; hair-shirts v. hippies. Do give it a break girl, and get back to something interesting. Is traffic really that slow?”
Why not have a nice discussion: Atheist president vs. Muslim president?
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 6:38 am #
#34: Oh dear, another post designed to whip up the unwashed
Oh, dear. Another idiot troll who doesn’t have the faintest clue who he’s talking to.
#36: Why not have a nice discussion:
You’re not capable of having a “discussion”, SFAG.
Comment by Joe on 5/20 @ 6:38 am #
I think this is what the athiests are talking about when they refer to sky fairies.
Comment by Joe on 5/20 @ 6:40 am #
sky fairies
Comment by Pablo on 5/20 @ 6:49 am #
And then I’d take that puppy and overlay “crazy people”.
Comment by Matt on 5/20 @ 6:49 am #
*Whut the hell’s a sky fairy*
Barney Frank in a plane.
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 7:22 am #
Hush, liebot.
Comment by The Monster on 5/20 @ 7:25 am #
Am I the only one to think that an atheist named “Christopher” should legally change his name, simply out of respect for the idea of truth-in-labeling? I’m thinking “Nihiltopher”, or maybe “Niles”, which would go well with that accent of his.
And then we could call him “Ramses” all the time, so that he’d eventually ask “why are you calling me ‘Ramses’?” And then we can be all like “because you’re De King of De Nile!”
Comment by Darleen on 5/20 @ 7:30 am #
#34
Why are you reading this thread?
I like Charlotte’s OUTLAW spirit. In every interview I’ve heard with Dawkins or Hitchens discussing their books, they frame the debate, they get away with maligning every person who doesn’t think exactly like them. Charlotte’s “oh bugger off you disengenuous pricks” is something that needs to be said, often and in many many “debates.”
Comment by JD on 5/20 @ 7:36 am #
Dr kill is kind of a dick, no?
Comment by maggie katzen on 5/20 @ 7:47 am #
kind of?
Comment by Matt on 5/20 @ 7:55 am #
I think you have to be British to say “bugger off”. Personally, I like “sod off” and I love shouting “bollocks” but people then look at me funny.
Comment by urthshu on 5/20 @ 8:02 am #
I don’t have a problem with religious belief, per se. I just have trouble believing what’s on offer.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 8:27 am #
“So, atheists, how about losing the tired sarcasm and boring self-pity and engaging believers seriously?”
Unfortunately this is like saying “I was visited by the tooth fairy last night so let’s engage in a serious discussion about it”. An atheist has nothing to discuss when the entire subject is fictional to him, all that is left is to point out the silliness of the belief. The desire for “serious” discussion requires the atheist to admit the existence of god to being the conversation, otherwise what possible issue could be discussed?
Comment by Taylor on 5/20 @ 8:46 am #
If forget who said it but it needs to be reiterated here: Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby. As far as Dawkins, besides his work as a scientist I truly admire him for how he has convinced a lot of people to speak up about what an absurd notion religion is and how it has stunted mankind for thousands of years. To me religion is the lack of science, a lack of understanding. Religion gave man pretty lame explanations of the physical world around us, of our origins, and about what happens when we die.
How would you feel about an article in a major newspaper that began, “I can’t stand Jesus freaks” or something or that order?
Comment by Pablo on 5/20 @ 8:53 am #
I’d think “Oh, the New York Times is still publishing?”
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/20 @ 9:10 am #
Then the atheist can hold his tongue.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/20 @ 9:11 am #
The ignorance, it is blinding.
The arrogance, it is stunning.
Comment by McGehee on 5/20 @ 9:15 am #
If the decision to not collect stamps is a deliberate one aimed primarily at distinguishing oneself socially from people who do collect stamps, it is.
The majority of people I’ve known who professed atheism did it for that very same purpose.
Comment by jamrat on 5/20 @ 9:15 am #
Taylor, since you’re convinced of it, exactly how much has religion “stunted” mankind?
Comment by Bob Reed on 5/20 @ 9:18 am #
I know that it’s soooo passe and 17th century, but haven’t any of the erudite, intellectual, bastions of reason and academe ever heard of Pascal, and his wager..?
A lot of folks way more intelligent than they have been far less militant and confrontational in trying to impose their particular cosmology on the rest of us…
Just as Cris Tingle interrogates people as to their belief in evolution, in an accusatory tone, so too does all this come of as some twisted modern day Spanish Inquisition…
and, as Michael Palin so famously lampooned…
Noooooobody, expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 5/20 @ 9:25 am #
No shit, Pablo. Yeah, there’s no mocking or making fun of the religious, especially Christians, in America, is there?
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 5/20 @ 9:40 am #
“An atheist has nothing to discuss when the entire subject is fictional to him, all that is left is to point out the silliness of the belief. The desire for “serious†discussion requires the atheist to admit the existence of god to being the conversation, otherwise what possible issue could be discussed?”
So, in other words, the atheist is entirely bound by his belief, and may not escape the bounds of them, even to engage a subject philosophically. He is left to do nothing but rudely hector another man about a point he cannot prove.
Wow. You guys are SMRT.
Comment by Matt on 5/20 @ 9:44 am #
Speak of the annoying atheist and an annoying atheist appears.
Taylor has single handedly reminded me of what a huge douchebags SOME atheists are when the topic of religion comes up. If you don’t believe in any god, so be it. I will not try to change your mind. However, I don’t believe in Allah or Buddha but I don’t run around telling Muslims and Buddhists they believe in magical beings, they’re all retarded for doing so and their belief has somehow ruined the progress of mankind.
in fact, I think its safe to say, without a belief in a God, there wouldn’t be a USA and atheists wouldn’t be able to sit in their ivory towers in that country, with the freedom to scoff at all of us godbothering rednecks.
Comment by jamrat on 5/20 @ 9:49 am #
Taylor, I know you’re reading this. Care to answer the question in post #56? C’mon it’s sciencey!
Comment by jamrat on 5/20 @ 9:50 am #
Apply comma and space as needed.
Comment by kelly on 5/20 @ 9:52 am #
Instead of Pascal, call it kelly’s wager (if I may): I bet neither Hitch nor Dawkins go around telling any Muslim that they believe in a “magical being.” Any takers?
Comment by Spiny Norman on 5/20 @ 9:52 am #
I think the term she’s looking for is “crashing boors“.
Oh puhleeze! I think the Protestant evangelicals are just as guilty of boorish behavior and, if anything, even more prone to wrapping themselves in the “oppressed victim” mantle, particularly whenever they run into opposition to teaching Biblical creationism (currently packaged as “Intelligent Design”) in public school science classes.
Just because scientific knowledge of today – May 20, 2009 – doesn’t have the answer for some perplexing question doesn’t mean “it must be God”. An appeal to the supernatural is NOT science.
Professor Dawkins’ opinions of God and religion are just that, his opinions. If he thinks metaphysics is hogwash, fine. Whatever. His attitude towards the Jews… well, there we might have a real problem.
Comment by Kevin B on 5/20 @ 10:29 am #
“Professor Dawkins’ opinions of God and religion are just that, his opinions. If he thinks metaphysics is hogwash, fine. Whatever. “
Aslong as he doesn’t constantly hector those of us who find metaphysics fascinating, belittle us as stupid ignoramuses, or attempt to influence governments to enshrine his predjudices into law…
Fine. Whatever.
Comment by Spiny Norman on 5/20 @ 10:46 am #
That’s where I break with the “evangelical” Atheists, such as Dawkins and his fellow travelers in the ACLU. Banishing any and all religious references and symbolism from the public arena is plain stupid and insulting.
Comment by Spiny Norman on 5/20 @ 10:49 am #
To reiterate: there is a profound difference between non-religious and anti-religious.
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 5/20 @ 10:55 am #
His attitude towards the Jews
If history teaches us nothing, it teaches us not to fuck with the Jews. Those that do so seem to get gloriously shellacked.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/20 @ 11:26 am #
And, frankly, ugly.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 12:17 pm #
“So, in other words, the atheist is entirely bound by his belief, and may not escape the bounds of them, even to engage a subject philosophically. He is left to do nothing but rudely hector another man about a point he cannot prove.”
You miss my point. Sure, the atheist could hold a discussion on the tooth fairy (or god) in a purely philosophical sense but what would be the point from the atheists side? He’d have to grant as true the basic assumptions about the existence and nature of the tooth fairy (or god), assumptions he knows are entirely wrong and untrue. Why bother having a discussion about things that don’t exist, even hypothetically? Why not discuss unicorns or dragons hypothetically? And as to your second point, the atheist need prove nothing. He simply says “show me” and the believer has nothing to show to prove his belief. How does the atheist disprove nothing? If there were a detectable god then he wouldn’t be an atheist anymore because god would clearly exist. But he is not detectable and so there is no reason for the atheist to believe he exists.
Comment by Fred on 5/20 @ 12:19 pm #
Thread winnah @59, supra.
Comment by Sammy on 5/20 @ 12:21 pm #
Sigh. How is it that Americans are so uneducated on the most absolutely basic concepts of science? I think a scientist would rephrase this as, “If you can’t provide evidence that something exists, it might not.”
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 12:29 pm #
To be even more pedantic, a scientist might say:
“science never ‘proves’ anything, it merely seeks to describe the universe in the most accurate terms possible”.
But I take your point Sammy, the average level of scientific understanding is shockingly low in the general population. But I would also add a further expanded explanation that if science cannot detect something then its existence is irrelevant. For if it is undetectable then it has no interaction with the physical world of any kind and as we live only in the physical world it thus has no interaction with us. This is not to say we have detected everything possible, we haven’t. But if we cannot detect something then we cannot include it in our theories and descriptions of the physical universe. That is why is is irrelevant. When we learn to detect it, it will immediately take on importance as a property of the universe.
Comment by Sdferr on 5/20 @ 12:35 pm #
There are scientists who think they are studying religious belief as a salient fact of human evolutionary psychology. These scientists may be religious believers themselves or they may be atheists, yet as far as scientific research goes, it wouldn’t matter, would it? Now, I’ve no special knowledge where and how far their studies have gotten them toward a falsifiable account of natural structures of religious belief in human evolutionary psychology, what hypotheses have been put forward, how they have been tested and so on, still, to the extent that modern scientific pursuits are the direct descendants of ancient philosophical pursuits, perhaps this would count as an instance of engagement in a philosophical treatment of the subject?
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/20 @ 12:38 pm #
How does he know those assumptions are wrong and untrue? Isn’t he merely taking that as axiomatic?
Now, there’s nothing wrong with people starting from different assumptions, but to declare your assumptions as the ultimate TRVTH and demand others acknowledge it seems… damn, what’s the word I’m searching for?
Comment by Adriane on 5/20 @ 12:39 pm #
#70 – then you have no problem with me killing you …
Because if I put a gun to your head & demand you show me your right to life, you have nothing to show me either. Certainly nothing that can be measured for size, weighed, color coded, recorded – visually or aurally, isolated and observed in its natural state, isolated then reintroduced in a different environment to observe changes or evolutionary behavior … Ad Nauseam.
Comment by Sammy on 5/20 @ 12:39 pm #
Man, I’ll take that bet. Actually, they do that all the time.
They phrase it as, “There’s no more reason to believe that Jews, or Christians, or Muslims are right than there is to assume that the Greeks who believed in Zeus were right. People of those religions are all perfectly happy being atheists in regards to the existence of Zeus, Baal, or the thousands of other Gods one could choose to believe in. It’s just their God that they insist is true, and all the others they label as fake.”
Comment by Sammy on 5/20 @ 12:48 pm #
Wow. You assume that if there isn’t some God telling us what to do, we’re just left to wring our hands and bump into the walls, completely lost. You assume that we have no capability to define the rules of our society and hold people accountable to those rules. Yet, in fact, that’s exactly what we’ve done. You can’t blow someone’s head off and get away with it, because we, the humans, have decided we will hunt you down and lock you up. We won’t pray for God to strike you with a lightning bolt. You might say, “But ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’ comes from the 10 commandments.” And I would ask, where the 10 commandments came from? Every civilizations (even ones without supposedly carved stone tables) seems to have figured that one out.
In fact, we seem to have gone quite beyond the will of God in respect to morality. Genocide is now considered bad, but God was fine with it. Children are no longer considered property. Women have rights. Slavery is abominable. All this despite the will of God, who provided great frameworks to perpetuate these atrocious behaviors.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 12:54 pm #
“How does he know those assumptions are wrong and untrue? Isn’t he merely taking that as axiomatic?”
Because the atheist is taking a rationalist position. There is no evidence and no reason for god to exist. As god would defy our current understanding of the laws of the universe it is not rational to believe in such an entity without evidence of its existence. If the atheist invokes special pleading in that the laws of the universe hold true except for god, why stop there? Why not make all kinds of exceptions for unicorns and dragons too? Once you allow god as an exception to rational thought there is no reason to adhere to rational thought at all. You’re just making stuff up to suit a pre-existing idea.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 1:02 pm #
Now, I’ve no special knowledge where and how far their studies have gotten them toward a falsifiable account of natural structures of religious belief in human evolutionary psychology, what hypotheses have been put forward, how they have been tested and so on, still, to the extent that modern scientific pursuits are the direct descendants of ancient philosophical pursuits, perhaps this would count as an instance of engagement in a philosophical treatment of the subject?
This is more a study of chemical relationships within the brain rather than philosophy. The fact an area of the brain becomes active when someone says “god” or provides a religious topic doesn’t testify to the existence of god, only that the brain has an area responsive to the concept. Our brains have areas responsive to the idea of food and our children and our fears. We even have an area of the brain for imagination where we can picture entire worlds that have no real form outside our head. It is all just brain chemistry.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 1:06 pm #
Because if I put a gun to your head & demand you show me your right to life, you have nothing to show me either.
Perhaps then I have no right to life. It is a human concept afterall, not one found in nature. No other creature has a “right” to live and will usually find itself playing the role of dinner sooner or later to some larger creature. I would suggest that being sentient, humans have some rights not held by lower species but they are purely subjective. Some people think they exist and some don’t. No one can prove their position as it is merely opinion.
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 1:12 pm #
Black, imagine you’re a goldfish in a bowl, in the living room. Now, tell me all about the toaster in the kitchen. Is it a dragon or a unicorn?
I would assume that the vast majority of the universe is beyond my ability to observe or understand.
Comment by comatus on 5/20 @ 1:14 pm #
I was sure I was an atheist when I first realized how stupid the people were who believed in God. Then I met a Communist. That evened things up.
I thought this issue through, to the most satisfaction I’m going to get from it, in the mid- to late-Sixties. Like new hairstyles and pop music for teens, I resent having to read about a new generation’s maturation process again and again on the front pages of otherwise serious journals. It’s as intellectually stimulating as school dress codes.
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 1:18 pm #
Some good comments in this thread and, like Kevin B above, I find Thomas Henry Huxley to be insightful.
Comment by Sdferr on 5/20 @ 1:22 pm #
Where in the world did the pursuit of the physical sciences come from if not from philosophical pursuits? What was it Newton called his masterwork? Ah yes, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. I think your rendering of philosophy may prove a little too cramped.
Comment by dicentra on 5/20 @ 1:26 pm #
Dudes:
I don’t give a rip whether you believe in God or space monkeys or nothing at all. But here’s the rub: if you tell me that you’re an atheist, I don’t assume that I know anything else about you. Not one thing.
Not your degree of intelligence or education. Nothing about your sanity or ability to reason. Nothing nothing nothing about how morally you behave in society. I’ll judge those things after listening to you talk and observing your behavior.
So how about the same courtesy, eh? I’ll refrain from assuming that you’re a Nazi baby-rapist heretic for being an atheist and you refrain from assuming that I’m a gullible, knuckle-dragging, delusional fool.
Deal?
Comment by dicentra on 5/20 @ 1:28 pm #
Perhaps then I have no right to life. It is a human concept afterall, not one found in nature.
But thanks for undermining the fundamental concepts underlying the Constitution and clearing the field for tyranny. It really made my day.
Comment by Sdferr on 5/20 @ 1:31 pm #
I find this too to be, if not odd, at least a statement over which to wonder:
So are we to understand that humans and human things are outside, over, under, displaced from nature? It could be so, but don’t we have some explaining to do in that case?
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 1:31 pm #
That’s funny, because, logically? Even if true? Proves nothing.
You might be surprised to hear then that you don’t sound very mature to me.
Comment by kelly on 5/20 @ 1:36 pm #
Uh huh. Show me the money when Dawkins delivers the message that Mohammed is a “sky fairy” at some colloquium in Cairo.
Comment by kelly on 5/20 @ 1:39 pm #
If atheists are so certain there is No God, why all the hostility towards those that do?
No God, no worries, right? Right?
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 1:40 pm #
Black, imagine you’re a goldfish in a bowl, in the living room. Now, tell me all about the toaster in the kitchen. Is it a dragon or a unicorn?
The analogy isn’t quite the same. While the goldfish may be limited to a sphere of existence much like we are on earth, the toaster is still within the detectable physical universe, as other stars are for us. While the goldfish can never visit the toaster it can determine its properties and possibly its function if it had the correct instruments to detect it. Humans however can’t do this with god. There is no instrument we can use because he is claimed not to be part of the physical universe.
I would assume that the vast majority of the universe is beyond my ability to observe or understand.
There is no reason to assume the universe is beyond your understanding. It is simply matter and energy interacting in predictable ways. You may not understand it now (example) but that doesn’t mean you can’t learn. And for humanity, there are things we don’t understand about the universe now but every day we learn something new as a species. There are no new physical laws being created so if we stick at this long enough, eventually we should discover them all and have a perfect understanding of all that surrounds us. Not in a million years could I perform the calculations necessary to understand how a black hole forms but I can easily understanding the concept of it. Most of the mystery of the universe is a property of size rather than unexplainable happenings.
Comment by Sdferr on 5/20 @ 1:45 pm #
David Hume, calling David Hume, there’s a proposition for you waiting at the main desk. David Hume, proposition for you sir.
Comment by dicentra on 5/20 @ 1:46 pm #
Here’s another proposition:
Any answer to a religious question is a religious belief — Is there a God? [yes | no | maybe]
All three of those answers constitute a religious belief because they address a religious concept. Other religious questions:
— Do we exist after death or before birth?
— What is ethical or moral?
Any time you address these issues, you are talking about religion. The only way that you can be truly non-religious is to be incapable of conceiving of these questions. I am fairly sure that newborns and my cats are unable to formulate the question “Is there a God” and therefore they are genuinely non-religious beings.
Equating God with the tooth fairy does not demonstrate rationality nor non-religiosity but rather contempt for one’s fellow beings. There are a ton of traditionally Christian beliefs that I find odd or irrational or just plain wrong (and others think the same of mine). But I don’t write them off as a bunch of morons who haven’t seen the light, nor do I wallow in the conceit that I have nothing to learn from them. (That’s FROM, not “about”.)
Because I’ve outgrown the need to sneer at my “inferiors,” and I’ve had the privilege of learning valuable things from people whose beliefs I don’t share or comprehend, or who do not possess intellectual gifts.
It’s not the atheism that galls, Black, it’s the arrogance and condescension and transparent immaturity. If your premise is that your atheism stems from your superior rationality, you need to read Aquinas’ Summa Theologica and then come back and tell me that the man did not possess a stellar intellect. Same with Sir Isaac Newton.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 1:49 pm #
But thanks for undermining the fundamental concepts underlying the Constitution and clearing the field for tyranny. It really made my day.
I have done no such thing. As Sammy said, human rights are an agreement between humans that we have them. That is all that is necessary for them to exist. And as I said, they are subjective. Not every human agrees with that proposition and we can’t prove to them we are correct, we can only try and persuade them with reasoned argument.
So are we to understand that humans and human things are outside, over, under, displaced from nature? It could be so, but don’t we have some explaining to do in that case?
No, we are part of nature but we have the distinction of being the only sentient beings on the planet (so far). As a result we can make decisions not in keeping with a normal ecosystem. We take care of our disabled and wounded for instance. Non-sentient animals let them die. Lower animals have no choice in the matter as they lack the thinking abilities to make such a choice. They do simply what instinct tells them. We can ignore instinct and make choices for other reasons. Deeming ourselves to have special rights to life is one such choice.
Comment by Squid on 5/20 @ 1:49 pm #
There are no new physical laws being created so if we stick at this long enough, eventually we should discover them all and have a perfect understanding of all that surrounds us.
I’m a trained physicist, and a longtime agnostic, and even I don’t hold these particular truths to be self-evident. In fact, I’d be surprised if half my peers held this level of arrogance regarding the universe. There’s something about being the chief science goldfish on the Toaster Exploration Project that makes one humble as to the limits of one’s knowledge.
Now, if you can convince me that there really are no new physical laws being created (or, more importantly, no existing laws that are changing over time), I might be willing to consider your argument more seriously. But until we’ve eliminated the possibility of physical laws that change over astronomical times and distances, I’m gonna hold on to my humility.
Comment by Adriane on 5/20 @ 1:52 pm #
Wow. You assume that if there isn’t some God telling us what to do, we’re just left to wring our hands and bump into the walls, completely lost.
Do take a deep breath. Having a cup of tea or a lie down might help as well.
The introduction to my comment specifically pointed to comment #70 in which the following appears…
He simply says “show me†and the believer has nothing to show to prove his belief.
That you have the right to life is a belief and nothing more, based on the criteria stated in #70 that only things that can scientifically shown have existence. And, since the atheist has no obligation to accept as worthy of his time that what the believer believes but he (the atheist) does not…
Why bother having a discussion about things that don’t exist, even hypothetically?
Then likewise, I have the right not to be bothered by Black’s right to exist as he can not scientifically proof that he has one.
As to whether I believe this to be a role model for Utopia, you all will find out when the space aliens come and put me in charge …
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 1:53 pm #
Black, a few issues: First, I can easily change my thought experiment so that the toaster is something that the goldfish would never think of detecting, hence would never develop the technology to detect. So, the point remains, can things we don’t know about or can even conceive of be said to naturally exist? Or, are they dragons and unicorns?
Second, you’re accepting a definition of the divine that is undetectable. Why accept that definition? Have you heard of the ignostics?
Finally, I’m not making a God of the Gaps argument here. I’m pointing out where we are on the timeline, technologically and intellectually. Okay, you can understand the concept of the black hole. Can you understand the basic concept of the myriad of things you don’t even know exist yet? If we still exist in a million years and we’re drastically more advanced, I might be more open to this view. Right now they make phone numbers 7 digits because humans have a hard time remembering a longer string.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 1:54 pm #
Equating God with the tooth fairy does not demonstrate rationality nor non-religiosity but rather contempt for one’s fellow beings.
For an atheist it is a cold statement of fact. You are insulted by it because the statement of fact invalidates a deeply held belief. That does not change the situation though, there are zero points of evidence for the existence of the tooth fairy and zero points for the existence of god. Equating them is perfectly rational as both are mythical beings for an atheist. A polytheist finds your belief in a single god irrational and contemptuous too. All unprovable beliefs are subject to being “insulted” when it is pointed out that they are in fact, unprovable and essentially, make believe.
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 1:54 pm #
Hume, heh. Right you are, sdferr.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 1:56 pm #
Black, a few issues: First, I can easily change my thought experiment so that the toaster is something that the goldfish would never think of detecting, hence would never develop the technology to detect. So, the point remains, can things we don’t know about or can even conceive of be said to naturally exist? Or, are they dragons and unicorns?
You may think you can design such a thought experiment but you can’t. Given sufficient time and instruments of sufficient complexity the goldfish will detect everything in the known universe, just as humans will. If it is matter or energy (and everything is one or the other) it can be detected.
Comment by dicentra on 5/20 @ 2:01 pm #
Black: You’re missing my point. I’m not insulted that you think that God and the tooth fairy are ontologically equivalent. I’m insulted that you think that I’m an utter moron for thinking otherwise.
It’s a question of courtesy, and also of acknowledging the reality that there are plenty of perfectly intelligent people who believe differently than you. And that as sure as you are about what you know, it’s foolish to be arrogant about your puny human knowledge. You don’t have to believe in deity to be humble about human knowledge.
For example, which of the following constitutes an insult?
“Black, you’re wrong about the existence of God.”
“Black, you just don’t believe in God because you love to do evil things.”
See what I’m saying?
Comment by Sdferr on 5/20 @ 2:02 pm #
This paragraph tells me you haven’t thought much about these questions and their relation to whatever it is that you think you are referring to when you use the term “nature”. “Normal ecosystem”? How are you going to get there? “Lower animals”-”higher animals”? Again, you have a great deal of explaining to do. “Instinct”-”we can ignore instinct”? This list will go on and your need to define and explain will increase, possibly exponentially. Let’s go back a step instead. What is this “nature” thing you are referring to?
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 2:03 pm #
Black, you didn’t address my two following points.
They speak to your concern.
Comment by dicentra on 5/20 @ 2:03 pm #
Besides, Frank J. just commandeered evolution as proof positive for Christianity’s validity.
There’s no going back now. Sorry.
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 2:06 pm #
And, to be honest, my goldfish analogy still holds if you accept the possibility of the heat death of the universe or that we’ll never be able to travel as fast as we hope.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 2:06 pm #
Now, if you can convince me that there really are no new physical laws being created (or, more importantly, no existing laws that are changing over time), I might be willing to consider your argument more seriously. But until we’ve eliminated the possibility of physical laws that change over astronomical times and distances, I’m gonna hold on to my humility.
As far as I am aware there is no evidence for new phyiscal laws or their changing over time. You can postulate an endless number of “what if” scenarios but they are meaningless until we have some evidence that one of them may be true. Any errors in our understanding will be corrected as our capabilities improve. Unless the universe can change its properties faster than we can observe them there is no reason to think we will not one day understand them all.
Comment by dicentra on 5/20 @ 2:14 pm #
I would like to remind the theists here that if they are relying on “oh yeah, well how do you explain X?” or “there’s a lot we don’t/can’t know” to make room for the existence of God, they are barking up the wrong tree. The only God you can evoke in that case is the God of the Gaps, an unreliable God whose domain shrinks daily in our science labs and observatories.
The existence of God is not self-evident from the observation of the cosmos. His existence can be verified only by spiritual means.
Besides, the proof is in the pudding, to wit: In a godless universe, would a thing such as chocolate pudding even exist?
I rest my case.
Comment by dicentra on 5/20 @ 2:18 pm #
Unless the universe can change its properties faster than we can observe them there is no reason to think we will not one day understand them all.
Black: Would it surprise you to know that I agree with you here? That the cosmos is ultimately comprehensible through rational means?
Would it also surprise you to know that the comprehensibility of the cosmos originated from Medieval Christianity (God is orderly; the mind of God can be discerned through the creation) and as such formed the basis for the scientific method? Conversely, the Muslim belief that Allah is arbitrary and that we cannot comprehend what Allah is up to, nor should we try, is why they’re in the dark ages still.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 2:21 pm #
Sorry bh, I’m not ignoring the points you made I’m just falling behind given I’m conversing with several people. If you think you can devise a thought experiment where the goldfish never detects the toaster, without resorting to the end of the universe (or heat death) then by all means I’d like to hear it. Afterall, end of the universe scenarios aren’t really very interesting are they?
Second, you’re accepting a definition of the divine that is undetectable. Why accept that definition? Have you heard of the ignostics?
I’m not accepting it as true myself but I am accepting it as true for religious folks for the point of argument as a property of god. If he is a god of faith, being detectable makes that a moot point and faith irrelevant. I’m happy to go with “god is detectable” but I doubt any believers would take me up as god is then falsifiable (he can be disproven by a failure to detect).
Finally, I’m not making a God of the Gaps argument here. I’m pointing out where we are on the timeline, technologically and intellectually. Okay, you can understand the concept of the black hole. Can you understand the basic concept of the myriad of things you don’t even know exist yet? If we still exist in a million years and we’re drastically more advanced, I might be more open to this view. Right now they make phone numbers 7 digits because humans have a hard time remembering a longer string.
But we are not talking about things that we don’t know exist. We are talking about an entity that created the very universe and can apparently alter matter and energy through a process not known to exist in the physical world and which would seem to violate some or all of the constants we have established for it. That is a claim of vast size and scope for which compelling evidence must exist. Despite this all encompassing power and influence over the physical world which means he must have the power to interact with it and thus have a detectable presence at least for moments of intervention, we have never been able to do so. In addition, we have never discovered a process which requires god to function or initiate.
Comment by Matt on 5/20 @ 2:26 pm #
*For an atheist it is a cold statement of fact*
Uh no its an obvious purposeful attempt to equate someone’s beliefs with a creature we BOTH know does not exist. That, without a doubt, shows contempt for that person’s belief, because you are essentially calling the person crazy for their belief. You can call what I believe in god without acknowledging there is a god or agreeing with my beliefs.
I find this kind of contempt usually comes from someone with a religious upbringing that went awry. Is that the case here ?
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 2:26 pm #
The existence of God is not self-evident from the observation of the cosmos. His existence can be verified only by spiritual means.
I hear what you’re saying, dicentra. However, isn’t it possible that in the future, we’ll discover something that will show the divine to be self-evident?
I’m agnostic about almost everything. Except chocolate pudding. It definitely exists.
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 2:27 pm #
Sorry, meant to blockquote the top paragraph from dicentra.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 2:27 pm #
Would it surprise you to know that I agree with you here? That the cosmos is ultimately comprehensible through rational means?
I can’t say I know you to be surprise or not but it is an agreeable point in common. As you noted though, reliance on the god of gaps is a rather weak faith and will always be diminished by human advances. I think the catholic church for one, and probably others too have come to this view as well which is beneficial both for religious life and scientific advancement.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/20 @ 2:28 pm #
No… because he’s made certain assumptions about where to start his arguments. That he then pats himself on the back for being “rational” is meaningless. The argument over “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” is also rational, once you understand the starting premise and the purpose of the question.
It’s the ignorance of the militant atheist that takes my breath away, and I’m an agnostic.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/20 @ 2:31 pm #
So when are you going to bother learning the arguments of those with which you disagree? Admittedly that makes it harder to Make Shit Up about their positions, but if you’re truly interested in understanding your fellow man, rather than congratulating yourself on being “rational”, it’s something you should do.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/20 @ 2:32 pm #
Aaannnddd you’re ignorant about the Big Bang, too.
Admittedly, you’ve not said otherwise. But the “eternal steady state” model of the universe has been out of vogue for quite a while.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 2:33 pm #
Uh no its an obvious purposeful attempt to equate someone’s beliefs with a creature we BOTH know does not exist. That, without a doubt, shows contempt for that person’s belief, because you are essentially calling the person crazy for their belief. You can call what I believe in god without acknowledging there is a god or agreeing with my beliefs.
I find this kind of contempt usually comes from someone with a religious upbringing that went awry. Is that the case here?
I’m afraid not in this case. I have not had any notable religious influence growing up and my exposure to such influence later on was always out of curiosity rather than a desire for faith.
But to take issue with one of your points, you don’t KNOW the tooth fairy doesn’t exist. It might. And if I can turn around an argument sometimes used for god, try and prove it doesn’t. We choose not to believe in it only because our rational mind says it does not. But any argument you can use to disprove the tooth fairy, I can apply to god just as easily and just as correctly. From a philosophical point of view, they are equivilent. Only to a religious person does one have more value than the other.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/20 @ 2:34 pm #
Oh. Not that up on modern physics, either. That’s almost a pre-Einsteinien notion of physics.
Comment by ginsewa on 5/20 @ 2:36 pm #
A God that we could understand would not be much of a god, if you ask me.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/20 @ 2:38 pm #
The problem, Black, is that you’ve demonstrated a fundamental level of ignorance of manners, philosophy, religion, and science. You’re left with arguing from the basis of “because I said so”.
And that’s never going to convince anyone.
Comment by dicentra on 5/20 @ 2:39 pm #
I hear what you’re saying, dicentra. However, isn’t it possible that in the future, we’ll discover something that will show the divine to be self-evident?
Something scientific? No.
When Jesus returns and invites us to touch his physical body with our own hands, then the divine will be self-evident. But we’re not going to find something that science will be forced to label as “supernatural.”
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/20 @ 2:40 pm #
*sigh*
“The tooth fairy does not exist because the existence of such a being is incompatible with the Christian model of the natural and the supernatural.”
Comment by dicentra on 5/20 @ 2:40 pm #
you don’t KNOW the tooth fairy doesn’t exist.
Yes I do. It was my mom. It was your mom. She fessed up to taking the tooth and replacing it with a quarter. She fessed up to the tooth fairy being a fanciful game that adults in our society play with children. Same as Santa Claus.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/20 @ 2:42 pm #
Whoah, whoah. Wait a minnit dicentra.
What are you implying about Santa Claus?
Comment by dicentra on 5/20 @ 2:42 pm #
What are you implying about Santa Claus?
That Santa Claus is the Tooth Fairy. He moonlights between Christmases.
::whew::
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 2:44 pm #
No… because he’s made certain assumptions about where to start his arguments. That he then pats himself on the back for being “rational†is meaningless.
The default position for all things is “I don’t know”. If someone alters that position by making a claim for the existence of god, evidence for that claim must follow. Where no evidence is present there is no rational reason for believing the claim. It would in fact be irrational to believe a claim for which there is no evidence.
So when are you going to bother learning the arguments of those with which you disagree?
No religion would claim their god as being part of the physical universe in the way science defines such a thing. God would thus be a detectable god and can be disproven conclusively by a failure to detect him. They may claim he acts upon the physical universe but that is different from being part of it. It is just another version of the god of gaps, suggesting he is hiding in the places we cannot yet detect him. One day though, there will be no such places left.
Aaannnddd you’re ignorant about the Big Bang, too.
Admittedly, you’ve not said otherwise. But the “eternal steady state†model of the universe has been out of vogue for quite a while.
I’m not sure what this means. Are you saying that the physical laws in the universe changed from one set to another at some point and that we can tell this happened?
Comment by Mark A. Flacy on 5/20 @ 2:45 pm #
Well, I’ll have to examine mathematics in a different light. Photons, too.
Comment by The Monster on 5/20 @ 2:46 pm #
You might not agree with Ben Franklin…
but I know a lot of folks who do.
Comment by Sdferr on 5/20 @ 2:48 pm #
It is? That isn’t what this
looks like.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 2:50 pm #
Having our moms swap teeth for money doesn’t imply anything about the existence of the tooth fairy. Perhaps it was just busy on those nights and used its magical powers to get humans to carry out its regular tasks by hypnotizing them. When I can make up any properties I want for the tooth fairy, it is impossible to PROVE that it doesn’t exist because I’ll just create a new property that invalidates your proof. All you can do is use rational thought to conclude that based on all available means of detection and on the lack of evidence for the positive, that it does not exist.
That is all an atheist does with god. Using rational thought there is no reason to believe in the existence of such an entity despite the ability to postulate one in theory.
Comment by Mark A. Flacy on 5/20 @ 2:50 pm #
I will offer that if there is an all-powerful god, our belief in it must not be important to it. If it were, we would be made such that it would be impossible for us to not do so.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 2:52 pm #
The default position for all things is “I don’t knowâ€.
It is? That isn’t what this
There are no new physical laws being created.
looks like.
Because we have moved beyond the default position and actually tested them. If the results of those tests changed over time or we observed events that can only be explained by different physical laws then I’d agree that they are likely changing. However we have not observed that and all our knowledge to this point suggests they do not change. Without evidence to the contrary, we default to the new position (based on evidence) that they do not change.
Comment by Mark A. Flacy on 5/20 @ 2:53 pm #
And a green chair is a confirming data point of the assertion “All crows are black”.
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 2:58 pm #
Not really off topic but I have a side question.
As an agnostic, I have no idea whether or not to capitalize G/god. Towards the etiquette, I don’t know if “god” is considered a slight or not. Yet, with a capitalization I might be confusingly expressing theism.
I often hedge with “the divine” but it’s nonsensical because it has the same capitalization issue.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 2:59 pm #
“God does not exist because the existence of such a being is incompatible with the tooth fairy model of the natural and the supernatural.â€
Comment by dicentra on 5/20 @ 2:59 pm #
No religion would claim their god as being part of the physical universe in the way science defines such a thing.
Mine does. Try again.
Having our moms swap teeth for money doesn’t imply anything about the existence of the tooth fairy.
On the contrary. Mom did it and said the the tooth fairy did it. That would hold up in a court of law or in any valid scientific investigation. The same would hold for someone who admitted to rigging a statue of the Virgin to cry crystal tears.
We can also know for certain that Harry Potter, Hermione Granger, and Ron Weasley are fictional characters.
However, people claim that their knowledge of God’s existence comes from revelation from that same God. You can cast doubt on their claims all you want, but those claims are different from J.K. Rowling turning in a manuscript to Bloomsbury.
Comment by dicentra on 5/20 @ 3:03 pm #
As an agnostic, I have no idea whether or not to capitalize G/god.
I don’t know, either. Maybe if you’re referring to the Judeo-Christian God it would be better capitalized. Because this is the Internet, you can’t always determine whether something is deliberate or a typo, so I don’t sweat “god.”
If you were being all snarky and using “god” as a deliberate insult, rather than as a mere descriptor, I would find it immature on your part, but I am past being insulted by that kind of thing.
Comment by Sammy on 5/20 @ 3:03 pm #
I’ll refer to Dawkins teapot argument. If someone walks up to you and says, “I believe there’s a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars.” What’s the right response? Is it arrogant to say, “I think that’s a foolish thing to believe, but so long as you don’t insist on teaching my kids about the teapot, we can agree to disagree.” Am I forced to say, “Well, I certainly can’t prove there isn’t such a teapot, so I’ll just have to nod my head and say there might be”, and treat it as though it’s a 50/50 chance?
I certainly agree, there’s nothing productive in calling someone a moron. I was a devout believer for about 25 years. Why wouldn’t I be? I grew up going to church. I learned all the arguments that let me dismiss atheists. I certainly wasn’t any more of a moron then than I am now. There were certain questions I chose not to ask myself. I didn’t ask:
Am I a Christian because my parents were Christians and had me schooled in these beliefs?
Have I really looked at religious teachings and found those of mine to me more credible than other religions, or no religion at all?
How would the world look different if there were no God?
Does morality really come from the Christian God? When I read the old testament, how do I reconcile such atrocities with the in-born sense of right and wrong that all people seem to posses?
When Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, they slaughtered every man, woman, and child. So how, exactly, do you do that if your a Jewish soldier? Do you hack the parents down first because they’re more of a threat, and then run through their terrified children? Or do you go for the kids first, knowing the parents will probably defend them? What kind of God orders this?
What do I do when the stories in the Bible contradict archeology, geology, and cosmology? Do I switch from a literal interpretation of the Bible to a figurative interpretation? And if it’s figurative, isn’t that just edging me closer to the notion that it’s fictional?
So I don’t think anyone’s a moron. I fervently believed too. I just wish I’d been able to take a critical look sooner, but I was brought up to think it’s a very risky thing to question God, and it would be perilous to really think about these questions.
I believed in the teapot between Earth and Mars because I was scared of what the teapot would do to me if I questioned it, and I was wrong.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 3:08 pm #
Mine does. Try again
I’m assuming you mean the physical form of jesus on earth so I’ll address that. If not, please do elaborate.
Jesus is not “god” in the testable sense. He was a temporary (possibly fictional) being who lived in a time when superstition ruled and science did not exist. There is no test we can perform to confirm jesus ever lived let alone was the manifestation of a god who performed supernatural acts. For god (in any manifestation) to be part of the physical universe he must be either energy or matter, those are the only two permissable states. If he is one of these, we can detect him but as I said previously, if that is the case then a failure to detect his presence is conclusive proof he does not exist. If he is not matter or energy then he is not part of this physical universe.
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 3:11 pm #
Maybe if you’re referring to the Judeo-Christian God it would be better capitalized.
Thanks, dicentra. That makes sense. After all, I never worry about capitalizing “gods”. So yeah, 9 times out of 10, I’m referring to God, not the concept of a god.
Comment by dicentra on 5/20 @ 3:12 pm #
What kind of God orders this?
(a) One who sees death differently than you or I — from his point of view, you just move from one playing field to another nicer one
(b) One who knew how utterly corrupt the current residents of Jericho had become and was destroying the group to prevent them from visiting their perversities on their children. (Imagine if all children were routinely sexually abused.)
(c) One who wanted to prevent the Israelites from taking the people of Jericho as spoils of war, as was the tradition of other nations
(d) One who wanted to prevent the spread of all manner of diseases from the destroyed people to the Israelites, whom he was trying to tutor in his ways
What looks horrific to us is from God’s point of view a mercy and a blessing. We just don’t have the perspective to see things his way yet.
I was brought up to think it’s a very risky thing to question God, and it would be perilous to really think about these questions.
I was brought up with the insistence that I absolutely must seek out God for myself to find out if he is real and if what my church is teaching is true. The greater peril would be to leave the bigger questions unexamined.
Comment by Sammy on 5/20 @ 3:19 pm #
What looks horrific to us is from God’s point of view a mercy and a blessing.
In an earlier comment, someone asked why atheists were so bothered by religion, and you could not have possibly offered a better example.
Comment by dicentra on 5/20 @ 3:19 pm #
I’m assuming you mean the physical form of Jesus on earth so I’ll address that. If not, please do elaborate.
Your assumption is only partly right. My religion teaches that Jesus was a person who dwelled on this earth at a certain place and time and that he’s not there anymore. We believe that God the Father (separate being) is an exalted human and that Jesus is now another exalted human. They exist in space and time. They did not create the elements but took preexisting, unorganized elements and formed them according to their wills into this universe, this planet, and many, many others.
I don’t want to get into the finer points of my religion, because that kind of thing goes nowhere. Can’t prove it even to those who believe the Bible is the Word of God. Been there, done that, got the merit badge.
As for whether we could eventually find this God with our instruments, theoretically, yes we could. But during this round of our existence, he will evade those instruments because to do otherwise would muck up the purpose of this existence. We’re mere children compared to him, worms to his butterfly, so no biggie.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 3:20 pm #
I’ve always thought it was a dead end to use the morality argument against the existence of god, and a lot of atheists do use it. If god really does exist and really has the powers claimed, morality, consistency, even linear time would all be meaningless from a human point of view. God could be whatever he wanted to be. One can argue against a specific god using an examination of his claimed qualities but not against god in general. That said, even a specific god can usually wiggle out of contradictions with the use of additional arbitrary traits.
The only argument that has ever held water for me was the rational argument. You don’t believe in the supernatural until someone proves that realm exists. Once you open the door to believing one thing without evidence there is no logical limit, you are obliged to believe in everything without evidence if you apply a consistent standard.
Comment by dicentra on 5/20 @ 3:24 pm #
In an earlier comment, someone asked why atheists were so bothered by religion, and you could not have possibly offered a better example.
Because religion accepts and even condones horrors? Because it’s possible for the God of Israel to command horrific things? Because when people follow such a god, they’re liable to do horrible things and there’s no way they can be talked out of it?
Yes, that’s pretty scary. So are the humans whose “gods” command them to exterminate all those who oppose their glorious Utopia To Come, and who likewise cannot be talked out of it.
I imagine that in Joshua’s day, the commandment to kill all the inhabitants made more sense in the context. We’re just reading a distant account.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 3:28 pm #
It does leave us non-believers in a tricky place though. God can turn around and order all his faithful to slaughter us and as god alone dictates morality, that slaughter would be both moral and righteous. If I ever hear a booming voice across the sky say “you all know the plan, go to work” I’ll be shooting first and asking questions later ;)
Comment by Pablo on 5/20 @ 3:29 pm #
What if that thing, that the supernatural exists, is based on the knowledge that things can and do exist and that things happen that are beyond our ability to empirically detect, measure and display, let alone understand?
Comment by Sammy on 5/20 @ 3:30 pm #
Which is what lead me to my eventually questioning the existence of God. I kept having to invent more and more convoluted explanations to keep God around. I believed that God created the universe, but he started 14 billion years ago, and he created us, but through evolution, but he guided evolution, but not in a way you could detect, and prayer definitely worked, but it’s not like you could do a study and prove it (like praying for heart patients to get better and seeing if they do), so does that mean that If I pray and get something, God has to screw someone else to keep the universe in balance?, and God is all good, but things like the holocaust happened, so did God let that happen so we’d have free will, but then how can God really be all good?
When I nulled God out, all other explanations simplified greatly. It was a copernican moment for me.
Comment by dicentra on 5/20 @ 3:30 pm #
Black. I don’t believe in the supernatural. My God is not a supernatural God. He must obey the laws of Nature. He cannot change the properties of a hydrogen atom, because the properties of a hydrogen atom derive from its physical structure.
He cannot arbitrarily decide what is good and what is evil; he can only adhere to what is good or he would cease to be God. I could not trust a God who could bend morality to his will, but who has instead bent his will to morality.
As for where this morality comes from, it just is, just as light is light and its absence is darkness, and heat is heat and its absence is cold. Righteousness is righteousness and its absence is evil.
And now we’re getting into the tall weeds, and speaking of weeds I’ve got seedlings to plant before the weather turns unbearably hot.
Chao pescao!
Comment by Sdferr on 5/20 @ 3:33 pm #
Nevermind the supernatural, how about returning to establishing the world of the natural, the rational, the differential markers of proof and falsity?
Sammy, don’t forget that Niccolai kept the epicycles.
Comment by dicentra on 5/20 @ 3:33 pm #
Sammy:
All good questions, but it turns out that you can find God only if you actually desire to live according to his righteousness. If all you want is God As Explanatory Model, you’re SOL, as you’ve already discovered.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/20 @ 3:38 pm #
And, once more, you reveal your ignorance.
Comment by Sammy on 5/20 @ 3:40 pm #
Yep, and praying to God isn’t going to stop those maniacs. We, as the rest of humanity, have to stand against them. Did God stop Hitler? The Church in Germany certainly didn’t. Last time I checked, it was boatloads of Allied soldiers.
If you want to pray that Bin Laden to change his ways, feel free. Me, I’m praying to the UAV pilot with his hand on the hellfire missile trigger.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/20 @ 3:41 pm #
Read up on the Big Bang, and the conditions in the picoseconds (and less) after the initial instance.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/20 @ 3:42 pm #
What transmits the force of gravity from M1 to M2?
Comment by Sammy on 5/20 @ 3:44 pm #
So I can only believe in God if I choose to believe that God is making me believe in God.
Ouch, my head hurts.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/20 @ 3:45 pm #
This word you keep using — “rational” — I don’t think it means what you think it does. You keep using it to mask your postulates; I don’t think it is capable of doing that.
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 3:49 pm #
Sammy, are you basically just saying that, because bad things happen, there is no God?
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 3:53 pm #
Actually, Sammy, no need to respond to that, I missed a couple comments.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/20 @ 4:00 pm #
You’ve swapped the postulates around. That wasn’t your original claim.
My point is that arguing from the initial assumption of the existence of a deity is no less valid than arguing from the initial assumption of the non-existence of a deity. Neither line of argument is more “rational” than the other, they simply start from different points.
From where they started, it made perfect sense for medieval scholars to argue how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Their arguments were rational, well-reasoned, and critically important to their understanding of the universe: Are angels material or immaterial? Are they constrained by physical limits or not?
They weren’t “irrational”, they started from a different set of assumptions.
That you’ve declared your assumptions and the following reasoning “rational” is simply your own, well, prejudice. You need to get past that prejudice and your own arrogance, or you’ll simply never be capable of understanding the people around you.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/20 @ 4:03 pm #
I use “God” to refer to the Christian deity, “god” as the generic.
Comment by Makewi on 5/20 @ 4:05 pm #
So the believer and the non believer can neither prove to others the truth of their position using any tool available to man today, and so are exactly equal on that score. That single fact would seem to call for a recognition for the need for humility, and yet more often than not it seem to lead to something uglier.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/20 @ 4:11 pm #
Your ignorance is rampant, like a bushman’s penis sheath.
Comment by dicentra on 5/20 @ 4:12 pm #
So I can only believe in God if I choose to believe that God is making me believe in God.
No. You can only FIND God if you start with the desire to find God and also have a willingness to deal with the implications of such a discovery. Because God won’t reveal anything to you that you’re not able or willing to handle.
You can’t find God if you’re starting from idle curiosity or if you’re looking for an explanation for events and things.
God can’t make you believe anything. Nobody can. In that sphere, you’re truly free.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/20 @ 4:13 pm #
That’s not a “rational argument”. It’s a different set of postulates.
Comment by Jim in KC on 5/20 @ 4:14 pm #
Huh? Of course they would, and do.
I suspect you may not have studied religion quite enough to be a very good atheist.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/20 @ 4:14 pm #
Your image of a supreme being is incongruent with that held by Christians, yet congruent with that held by Muslims.
Were you aware of that? If not, why not?
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/20 @ 4:16 pm #
And yet we’re told that one position is “rational” and the other not.
Like I said, I don’t think “rational” can be stretched as far as he’d like.
Comment by Makewi on 5/20 @ 4:17 pm #
The only argument that has ever held water for me was the rational argument. You don’t believe in the supernatural until someone proves that realm exists.
Then those that believe in string theory in specific, or in any grand unifying theory in general are irrational? How about those that believe a sunset is beautiful?
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 4:21 pm #
Re: Christian God, generic god, thanks Rob. Makes sense.
Comment by Jim in KC on 5/20 @ 4:22 pm #
String theory as a proxy for god, Makewi?
Comment by Makewi on 5/20 @ 4:25 pm #
More as a proxy for faith I think.
Comment by dicentra on 5/20 @ 4:25 pm #
See that’s what always bothered me about Mr. Spock: he operated from the premise that What Is Logical can always be determined merely by careful cognition and mental discipline. He did not seem to take into account that What Is Logical is built upon your initial premises, which often cannot be proven and may be entirely mistaken.
And he also did not take into account the fact that What Is Logical regarding morality is definitely not easily determined by cognition. “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?” What if a few people need to be rescued from a high mountain ledge, while the many just need to kick back and relax with a few cold ones?
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/20 @ 4:27 pm #
Jim in KC — that’s why I’ll never cop to anything more doubting than agnostic. I simply cannot know and refuse to pretend to know. I’ve studied enough to know that millenia of people smarter than I have spent their lives pondering the Big Questions, and that they were as “rational” as any modern atheist and, frankly, more rational than most.
And I’ve learned that the decisions people make are a hell of a lot more comprehensible when I try to understand the underpinnings of their beliefs. It may not lead me to agree with them, but it makes it a hell of a lot easier to reach common ground — or solidify my motivation to oppose them.
Comment by Sammy on 5/20 @ 4:28 pm #
That’s another reason I stopped believing. I got tired of just making stuff up, and finding more and more contrived ways of keeping God “real”.
Maybe. Apparently most of German Christianity found a way to rationalize Hitler’s plans.
Comment by Sammy on 5/20 @ 4:33 pm #
And I believe that there’s a teapot orbiting between the Earth and Mars. You can’t prove otherwise, so you must, with humility, declare that we’re on equal footing and I may well be right.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/20 @ 4:35 pm #
Over the years, a great big booby trap has been built into Vulcan Logic. It’s all based on their religion, inspired by philosophers and prophets, and is as much a matter of their own faith as any human religion. Some of that is undoubtedly the result of them being the fictional creation of humanity, of course, but it’s an interesting twist.
From what I recall of the Trek canon, Vulcans and Romulans are biologically identical, but their cultures — their underlying postulates — make one the tightest members of the Federation and the other its greatest foes.
Comment by Jim in KC on 5/20 @ 4:42 pm #
What I’m fairly satisfied that I’ve figured out, Rob, is that it appears to be human nature to seek answers. The answers keep changing.
That’s how we get from “god has blotted out the sun” as an explanation for eclipses to “string theory” as an explanation for spooky action at a distance.
None of it’s probative, really, just… interesting.
Comment by Makewi on 5/20 @ 4:44 pm #
That’s another reason I stopped believing. I got tired of just making stuff up, and finding more and more contrived ways of keeping God “realâ€.
Here’s that humility thing I was talking about earlier. You are assuming that your failure to come up with answers which server your purpose can be taken to mean what you assume they mean. There is a repeated theme there and it has nothing to do with a creator or reason.
Despite mankind’s inability to see infrared light it did exist. Ptolemy was not the one that proved it, but probably not for lack of smarts.
Mankind has not proven string theory, and yet based on other observable phenomenon we speculate that there is a theory that binds that which is so very much alike but behaves differently, and string theory seems like it could be it. It will most likely not be me that proves it, if in fact it is ever proved.
Comment by Makewi on 5/20 @ 4:49 pm #
And I believe that there’s a teapot orbiting between the Earth and Mars. You can’t prove otherwise, so you must, with humility, declare that we’re on equal footing and I may well be right.
That would be true if I lacked the tools to prove or disprove it. A teapot is a physical entity, and as such is observable. An orbit between Earth and Mars is a known location, and so I could examine the entire space you have described looking for the object you described and prove or disprove your claim. You overlooked a part of what I said, can you tell me what it is?
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 4:49 pm #
Did God stop Hitler? The Church in Germany certainly didn’t.
You and your ilk put your faith in Marxism, which has killed far more people that Hitler.
I can point at all sorts of great art, great architecture, and tremendous charitable works created by Christians.
All your religion has to show for it is about 100 million dead bodies.
So… who’s the idiot here?
Comment by dicentra on 5/20 @ 4:53 pm #
I got tired of just making stuff up, and finding more and more contrived ways of keeping God “realâ€.
You’re missing my point. I’m not asking you to make anything up.
Believe or not as you will.
And I believe that there’s a teapot orbiting between the Earth and Mars. You can’t prove otherwise, so you must, with humility, declare that we’re on equal footing and I may well be right.
No, I must with humility not presume to judge your intelligence or sanity on that point alone. I wouldn’t see us as on equal footing, and I’d have the tact to keep that to myself.
That’s the original point of this post: It’s not the atheism that’s the problem, it’s the presumption of some atheists that believers are morons, QED.
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 4:55 pm #
As I’ve said in regard to other trolls, dicentra, I’d estimate that Sammy is at least 30 points below the median IQ for this site. Maybe 40.
Comment by dicentra on 5/20 @ 4:57 pm #
The ability to discern religious truth exists independently of IQ and all other factors.
Sammy’s “spiritual quotient” is a bit low. I can’t know anything else about him. When presenting people like Sammy with a spiritual proposition, they often can’t understand what you’re saying, even if there’s nothing wrong with their reading skills.
It’s weird.
Comment by Makewi on 5/20 @ 5:04 pm #
I think it’s a belief that logic and reason can answer any question, and the failure for those tools to provide an explanation means there is something wrong with the question itself. As such, the question of “Does God exist?” is seen as ridiculous.
Comment by Sammy on 5/20 @ 5:19 pm #
So disprove it. So far, no one has ruled it out. Does that mean that you have to admit that it’s a 50/50 whether it’s there or not?
Whoa. Too much of your true colors coming through there all at once. First, I put no faith in Marxism (an economic system, which you’re conflating with religious beliefs), as Marxism has been a proven failure.
As to Christians creating great art, wonderful! That proves God, I guess. During the dark ages, the Muslim world was the center of culture and learning. Judging by Greek culture and art, I guess Zeus is proven also.
And on the 100 million bodies, I’m having trouble finding them. Is this the tired “Stalin was an atheist” argument? Yes, he was an atheist, and a bad man, and killed lots of people. I don’t know that you can claim that he killed “in the name of atheism”. Hitler had a mustache. Did he kill in the name of mustaches?
And even if you are going to stick to “Stalin killed in the name of atheism”, how is that evidence for the existence of God?
Comment by Sdferr on 5/20 @ 5:20 pm #
The tricky place in which you may find yourself should you care to look) is without a coherent account of your own axiomata and unexamined presuppositions. But nobody said the path you’ve chosen would be easy.
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 5:22 pm #
As to Christians creating great art, wonderful! That proves God, I guess.
Wake me up if you decide to address my actual point, okay?
Thanks.
Is this the tired “Stalin was an atheist†argument?
My post was written in English, Sammy. If you can’t speak to what was written rather than your dullwitted recasting of it, STFU.
Thanks.
And on the 100 million bodies, I’m having trouble finding them.
Start here.
Thanks.
Comment by Makewi on 5/20 @ 5:28 pm #
So disprove it. So far, no one has ruled it out. Does that mean that you have to admit that it’s a 50/50 whether it’s there or not?
You seem to be stumbling on this concept, so I’ll try one more time. Your supposition can be proven or disproven because we have the tools at our disposal to do so. Whether or not I actually prove or disprove it is secondary to the fact that I have the tool to do so. On the other hand, given the same set of tools we cannot prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being.
I hope for your sake at least a little of this is sinking in. You could, of course, continue to deny these truths, but if you do it won’t say anything about logic or reason or science or God, but it will say volumes about you.
Comment by Sammy on 5/20 @ 5:38 pm #
Sorry SBP, you laid it all out so clearly, I have no idea why I had trouble following you. Let me try again, point by point.
I’m not a Marxist. Was there a question here?
And this is important…because???
Ok, killings by government. Some where the leader was likely an atheist. Some where the leader wasn’t. Again, WTF is your point? You tell me to STFU and you can even post a fully formulated thought?
Comment by Sammy on 5/20 @ 5:42 pm #
Oh, I get it! Ok, I believe in an invisible magical teapot that is undetectable using any scientific tools. This obviously makes it more likely that my belief is correct, since it’s harder to disprove. So now will you humbly admit that it’s a 50/50 whether my magic teapot exists?
Comment by Makewi on 5/20 @ 5:48 pm #
Sammy,
I am willing to continue with this if you can explain to me where you get the 50/50 from. I never brought up probabilities. Perhaps you should read my original statement again.
Comment by Sammy on 5/20 @ 5:49 pm #
Ok, forget the 50/50.
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 5:51 pm #
Pierian Spring Water, get your Pierian Spring Water here! Now being served by the thimbleful.
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 5:51 pm #
Sorry SBP, you laid it all out so clearly, I have no idea why I had trouble following you.
Because you’re a dishonest idiot.
Hope that helps.
Ok, killings by government. Some where the leader was likely an atheist.
I’m not going to accept your dullwitted spin, liebot, so you might as well give it up.
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 5:52 pm #
P.S. How’s Tranny Crazyo doing?
Comment by Makewi on 5/20 @ 5:52 pm #
Not just the 50/50, you need to remove the sentance that precedes it. So we are left with
Oh, I get it! Ok, I believe in an invisible magical teapot that is undetectable using any scientific tools.
This obviously makes it more likely that my belief is correct, since it’s harder to disprove. So now will you humbly admit that it’s a 50/50 whether my magic teapot exists?Which leaves me lacking a question.
Comment by Jim in KC on 5/20 @ 5:59 pm #
Sounds like Sammy has himself a god he’s happy with.
Comment by newrouter on 5/20 @ 5:59 pm #
During the dark ages, the Muslim world was the center of culture and learning.
pillaged from other cultures
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 5:59 pm #
Oh, #195 is for Sammy.
Comment by Sammy on 5/20 @ 6:03 pm #
SBP LOL.
Makewi, I believe in an invisible magical teapot that is undetectable using any scientific tools. Do you admit that it might exist?
Comment by Sdferr on 5/20 @ 6:03 pm #
bh, I’m frankly perplexed that self proclaimed non-deity-believing rationalists would not be eager to examine their own assumptions and axiomata, aren’t you?
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 6:07 pm #
Yes, sdferr, odd that.
Comment by Makewi on 5/20 @ 6:07 pm #
Yes, Sammy. Lacking any tools to determine whether a thing exists or not, I am forced to accept that it might. On the other hand, given the same set of facts it is equally valid to accept that it might not. Just like I said. So where does that leave you in regards to my original statement?
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 6:28 pm #
Anyone here wondering if Sammy understands that there is a greater set of these questions?
Imagine him as an early mathmetician. He’d come across a buddy of his thinking about the square root of negative one. And he’d say, “Oh, sure, I suppose there are teapots in space too. Idiot.” Can we detect i? No, we can’t. Is it a unicorn? Nope.
Comment by Sammy on 5/20 @ 6:28 pm #
Your original statement was:
You say their equal because neither can prove to the other. However, I would posit that the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. The believer claims that God exists. The believer is then obligated to offer some evidence. You can’t offer evidence to the non-existence of something. They are not on equal footing.
If I say, “I believe in a magic invisible teapot. You can’t disprove it.” You can rightly say, “Where’s the evidence?”
In this country, we’re asked to not only believe in the existence of God, but take certain actions based on that belief. We’re asked to believe that God inspires us to do good. We’re asked to believe the our legal system is loosely based on laws handed down down by God. The president is obligated to request that God bless America every time he gives a speech. We’re expected to not scratch our head when we read “In God We Trust” on every bill. It’s suggested that children should pray in school. It’s suggested that stem cell research should be banned because it violates the will of God, or that we have no right to pay God.
And we’re expected to go along, not because evidence for God has been put forward, but because we haven’t disproven it. We haven’t disproven a made up magical being that can evade all tools of science.
So no, the two camps are not on equal footing. The camp claiming the existence of something is required to offer some evidence of that existence.
Comment by dr kill on 5/20 @ 6:32 pm #
Christ, are you still at it? Can’t we agree to respect each others beliefs or lack of them and move forward? What happened to the ‘I don’t care if you love the baby Jesus and hate abortion but let’s agree on strong national defense, low taxes and small government?
This stupid shit is killing us all.
Comment by Sdferr on 5/20 @ 6:38 pm #
One can’t help but notice too, bh, that the ongoing critique of the religious and their religion by self professed atheists and non-believers, not to say never, but at least in this thread and those I’ve seen like it, doesn’t take the form of an honest, respectful examination of the holy texts themselves, taking into account what they may have to say for themselves and about themselves, seeking to learn how they may reflect upon themselves (or not), looking to see what there is in them that, whether one supposes an extant Godhead or no, may have to teach us about any unchanging human condition, or even whether they teach such a condition or no. Seems a waste of an otherwise scarce human talent and energy to always be tilting away at broken down windmills.
Comment by Makewi on 5/20 @ 6:46 pm #
Sammy
Good luck to you. You think you are using logic and reason to support a position, but you are not. You are elevating one position (non belief) as truth (because you cannot prove a non-existence, which by they way, is not true), and then using that position to require the other side to prove theirs. So while you think you have poked holes in my statement, you have merely shown us your ignorance and your bias.
As to the rest of your comment, I will disregard it for the time being as being outside the scope of my original position.
Comment by Makewi on 5/20 @ 6:49 pm #
?This stupid shit is killing us all.
Huh, and here I thought we were just having a discussion. Should I order more body bags?
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 6:53 pm #
Sdferr, true enough. Of course, I’d have to be on the sidelines. I’m woefully under read in that area as well.
Makewi, hey, you tried. I heard what you were saying.
dr. kill, chill the hell out. If you’ll notice, most of this discussion wasn’t so much “what to believe” but “how do we go about reasoning”.
Comment by Makewi on 5/20 @ 6:57 pm #
bh, I thought it was worth a shot.
Comment by Sdferr on 5/20 @ 6:59 pm #
It happens to fall out as another of those “meaning laid down by the meaner” opportunities by the wayside. What were those god worshiping morons on about? They were on about whatever we say the were on about, that’s what.
Comment by bill on 5/20 @ 7:06 pm #
Sammy, I see your experience in the lives of children in the muscular Christian fellowship I’m part of. It is muscular because it was birthed by largely broken people touched and transformed by grace. We know ,without apology, the reality of our experience. In my case, I was a drug crazed drifter who became a practical atheist in the mud and blood of War Zone C on the Cambodian border in 1968. Ten years later, I cried out to a God I didn’t know in a park in Tucson. Two blocks and five minutes later, a believer came and ministered to me. This was repeated two hours later. Space won’t allow me to recount 31 years of divine intervention.
A couple of my children ( and others of friends) have their own crises of
faith because they haven’t yet experienced God’s visitation. I pray they will.
Your dismissal of the German church in World War II ignores Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoller and others who spoke truth to Nazi horrors. I pray for Bin Laden’s demise and have no problem with our guys lighting him up. The two postures aren’t mutually exclusive.
You’ll never figure it out homeboy. God’s ways are not your ways. I hope you get out of the corner you’ve painted yourself into.
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 7:34 pm #
SBP LOL.
Well, I know when my argument’s been thoroughly refuted.
Hint: “LOL” doesn’t work. Lying about what I said doesn’t work, either.
We’re asked to believe the our legal system is loosely based on laws handed down down by God.
Evidence?
The president is obligated to request that God bless America every time he gives a speech.
Evidence of this “obligation”?
Of course, you’re too stupid to imagine that a President might actually, oh, I don’t know, BELIEVE IN GOD.
So, what’s your take on Obama? Believes in God, or simply lies about it?
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 7:45 pm #
So, what’s your take on Obama? Believes in God, or simply lies about it?
Five will get you ten that “Sammy” won’t answer this question honestly.
Comment by Darleen on 5/20 @ 7:57 pm #
Um, I’ve been scrolling through the comments and there’s something I haven’t seen
Without God there is no objective morality and no ultimate justice. All “rights” are conceits, merely the opinions of so-called “thinking” animals. There is no meaning to Life, no lessons, no learning, merely the existence of excited DNA from activation to deactivation.
This is not to say there are no decent, moral atheists and no indecent, immoral theists. But if we are nothing but a cosmic accident, then decency and morality have no meaning.
Comment by Sdferr on 5/20 @ 8:03 pm #
I didn’t get how you meant “…there’s something I haven’t seen…” Darleen? Was that to say that no-one had made the argument?
Comment by Darleen on 5/20 @ 8:04 pm #
This stupid shit is killing us all.
Oh looky, a concern troll … one of those Pragmatic “Republicans” wringing his/her hands over the horror of allowing the godbotherers to even vote, let alone express views.
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 8:04 pm #
But if we are nothing but a cosmic accident, then decency and morality have no meaning.
The evolutionary answer would be that decency and morality are conducive to survival, at least in some situations.
Comment by Darleen on 5/20 @ 8:05 pm #
Sdferr
I was scrolling and may have skipped over it … sorry I wasn’t precise in my language (a long LONG stressy day)
I apologize if I’m repeating what has already been said.
Comment by Darleen on 5/20 @ 8:07 pm #
SBP
But whose survival and under what circumstances? Certainly, humanity can survive just fine with some tribes being predators and considering other tribes prey.
Comment by Sdferr on 5/20 @ 8:08 pm #
Glass of wine to soothe away the fraught perhaps? Please do.
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 8:10 pm #
Certainly, humanity can survive just fine with some tribes being predators and considering other tribes prey.
Sure. But those same tribes are generally relatively decent to their own members (at least to the extent of not killing them off before they can breed).
According to one account I’ve read, Egill Skallagrimsson was deeply beloved by his grandchildren.
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 8:12 pm #
I see that the question posed in my #216 and #217 remains unanswered.
Comment by RTO Trainer on 5/20 @ 8:17 pm #
Regarding the supernatural. It is impossible for the natural to detect the supernatural. It’s the supernatural. The supernatural, hoever, can reveal itself to the natural.
Human beings are, by nature, religious, whether they believe in God, or a god(s) or not.
Comment by Sdferr on 5/20 @ 8:21 pm #
Have any of you all watched the Pinker talk on the “cognitive niche” that Derbyshire linked a couple of days ago at NRO?
Comment by Mark A. Flacy on 5/20 @ 9:09 pm #
Nobody’s mentioned Gödel’s completeness theorem yet. Tsk.
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 9:17 pm #
completeness=incompleteness, perhaps?
Otherwise, please explain. I don’t understand.
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 9:17 pm #
No, I haven’t sdferr, would you recommend it?
Comment by Sdferr on 5/20 @ 9:23 pm #
Sure I would.
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 9:26 pm #
Thanks.
Comment by Sammy on 5/20 @ 9:37 pm #
Oh, I’m sure he does really believe in God. I also think it’s pretty hard to get elected in America if you don’t claim to be a believer. After all, Elizabeth Dole seemed to think that calling her opponent godless would be effective, and it likely would have been, if her opponent hadn’t been a Sunday school teacher.
And with God, there’s also no objective morality. This is the same God that legislates slavery, and the rules for selling ones children. This is the same God that sometimes shows compassion and mercy, and other times orders the slaughter of every man, woman, and child (take a moment and really let that last on sink in). This is the same God that decrees that women are absolutely 2nd class to men, forever helpers and subordinate. Is this really the objective morality you’re looking for?
If this God exists, I politely request that he make his own blog post magically appear and settle the matter.
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 9:41 pm #
Sammy, read your own post and figure out your own errors. It’s kind of rude to keep asking us to do it for you.
Weak hedge on SBP’s question, btw.
Comment by Sammy on 5/20 @ 9:52 pm #
Ok, let me be as clear as I possibly can. It’s likely that you and I are making separate points that don’t actually contradict each other.
If someone wants to believe in a God that hears prayers, intervenes at his discretion, and is absolutely undetectable by any means available to humans, that’s fine. Even if no one can supply the tiniest amount of evidence, it makes little difference to me if that’s what they want to spend their time on.
Likewise, I can believe in my invisible magic teapot between Earth and Mars. I can have faith in it, worship it, and believe that it provides meaning to me. That belief shouldn’t bother anyone else. No one can disprove it, so I should not be required to abandon that belief nor provide evidence to the existence of my teapot.
However, I cannot argue that my teapot belief should form the foundation for any public policy. I should be opposed if I demand the teaching of my teapot belief in public schools as a foundation for cosmology and biology. I should not be allowed to present my teaot, with no evidence, as an alternative to evolution, with enormous amounts of evidence.
If I want to question how we, as humans, view the developing human inside of the mother, that’s a fine thing for us humans to discuss and decide what lines we want to draw, but at the point that I start saying abortion should be banned because my magic teapot hates abortion, people have a right to call my teapot into question.
If I want to discuss whether committed magnanimous homosexual relationships are a detriment to society while committed magnanimous heterosexual relationship are a benefit to society, that’s a fine discussion to have. But if I say certain relationships are forbidden because my teapot says so, again, people get to question the teapot belief.
Again, believe whatever you want. But the moment you start advocating policy based on those beliefs, policy that affects more than fellow followers, expect to be asked for evidence. If you can’t offer any, it’s not unreasonable for you to be sidelined.
Comment by Makewi on 5/20 @ 9:56 pm #
Sdferr, Fascinating stuff. Thanks.
Comment by Makewi on 5/20 @ 10:08 pm #
Sammy
This is new ground for our discussion, but I am willing to run with it. You are fortunate to live in a secular country (I am assuming) such as ours, because while the basis of a policy position may be grounded in a religious precept, that is not where the game ends. All positions should be, and are, weighed on the merits of the position alone. Once you have done that, the source of the idea, or policy, just becomes another aspect of it.
I am sure on some level that you agree. There are rules against murder in the Bible, but you wouldn’t want to scrap them in our society merely because of an affiliation to a religious rule, would you?
This line of thought reminds me of the questions asked around the idea of is something moral simply because God says it is.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 10:22 pm #
Rob, I believe you are twisting the meaning of what “rational thought” comprises when you suggest that postulating something that is outside the physical laws of the universe is rational. It is not, it is what we call “making shit up”. If you believe it to be rational to postulate one god, then it is rational to postulate 2. And 3. And 4 and 5 and 6 and on and on to infinity gods. It also becomes rational to postulate every conceivable imaginary creature, place, form of existence and so on. Basically you remove the distinction between real and not real by your definition. Thus clearly it is wrong. From an initial state of “I don’t know” it is not rational to propose god or fairies or anything else that cannot be proven to exist.
Comment by Sdferr on 5/20 @ 10:27 pm #
Why is this so? What is the basis of the right you presuppose here, or to say another way, what has established this to be the case?
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 10:29 pm #
Are physicists who postulate not one reality, but two, then three, then multiple universes rational, Black? It’s a going concern.
Likewise, reality as we know it requires three spatial dimensions yet m-theory posits many more. It’s a going concern.
Then, I’ll bring up math.
What you consider to be the “God question” is part of a greater set.
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 10:31 pm #
However, I cannot argue that my teapot belief should form the foundation for any public policy.
Sure you can. Just get a sufficient number of votes and you can make all the public policy you want.
Formerly there was a Constitution to prevent things from going TOO far, but no one pays any attention to that, least of all Obama fans like you.
Welcome to the world you made.
I should not be allowed to present my teaot, with no evidence, as an alternative to evolution, with enormous amounts of evidence.
Most believers have no problem with the idea of evolution. Either you’re constructing a straw man the size of the Colossus of Rhodes, or you simply don’t know what you’re talking about.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 10:31 pm #
Several objections have been raised to my statement that no religion would place god in the physical universe so I will expand what I meant. If god is part of the physical universe, he must take the form of energy or matter which also means he has a discrete form that must obey the laws of physics. He cannot be everywhere, he must travel only at the speed of light or slower, he is affected by gravity and so on. If there is a reglion that actually believes this, I have never heard of it. If he “exists” in this universe but is not bound by its constants then he doesn’t really exist in this universe in truth. He cannot be both on our plane of existence and yet outside its laws. That is different from his ability to influence the physical universe though. He can exist somewhere outside the physical universe and thus not have to obey those laws and still pop in from time to time for miracles and so on but his form is not governed by physics.
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 10:32 pm #
it is not rational to propose god or fairies or anything else that cannot be proven to exist.
Can you prove that justice exists?
Comment by Makewi on 5/20 @ 10:33 pm #
Black
If you follow that reasoning then it stands to reason that our current inability to prove a unified theory would make those who propose one, either in general or in specific, irrational. Which I guess would make Einstein a dreamer. At least up until the point in which it is proven.
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 10:36 pm #
magnanimous homosexual
Oh, yeah. I’ve heard about those kinds of deals.
Heh.
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 10:37 pm #
From an initial state of “I don’t know†it is not rational to propose god or fairies or anything else that cannot be proven to exist.
Ever hear of a man named Kurt Gödel?
Comment by dash rendar on 5/20 @ 10:38 pm #
god is basically a corollary to the second law of thermodynamics.
Comment by Sammy on 5/20 @ 10:45 pm #
I absolutely agree. In fact, I often tell people, if you want to have a happier life, the 10 commandments are a pretty good place to start (at least the last 8 commandments). I think the Bible contains an enormous amount of human wisdom collected over millennia. It also contains some pretty atrocious things. I trust we’re smart enough to figure out the difference. Greek mythology also shines a light on aspects of the human condition. There’s lessons there too.
I don’t even think spirituality, per-se, is a bad thing. Love and beauty are products of the human, or maybe mammalian, mind (no one would suggest that trees love, or perceive beauty). But being a product of the human mind doesn’t diminish their value. Human existence is certainly more enjoyable for those things, and evolutionary theory would suggest they’re there for an important reason.
In the same way, some form of spirituality is likely beneficial. I’m certainly better off because people have the courage to do the right thing, and look to a purpose higher than their own needs. Let’s be clear, the hospitals in my town are named Providence, Emmanuel, etc. These were founded by people who believed that caring for others were the right thing to do, and we’re all better off for it.
This isn’t evidence that God exists, but it is evidence spirituality is an important part of being human. For some (evolutionary, I suspect) reason, it’s hardwired into us, just like love, trust, patriotism, awe, reverence, etc. In fact brain research seems to be zeroing in on the God spot, and there’s substantial evidence of people who either lose the ability to believe after certain brain injury/surgery, or suddenly become fervent.
My challenge to Atheists is, “Hey, when do you get off your ass and start building hospitals?” We may be seeing the beginning of this with things like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and other notable philanthropic efforts, but charitably, we’re falling short. My hope would be that we figure out how to hang on to the good philosophies from religion, and abandon the “God tells me I get to tell you what to do” part. But, considering it’s hardwired, I’m less than optimistic.
Comment by Makewi on 5/20 @ 10:47 pm #
If god is part of the physical universe, he must take the form of energy or matter which also means he has a discrete form that must obey the laws of physics.
Why? I as a programmer can change the “rules” of the “worlds” in which I create whenever it pleases me to do so. In fact, I wield such power in that case that if my programs were worlds which contained rational beings I could prevent them from ever knowing that anything had changed. Further, which laws of physics – those that apply to the large or to the very small?
Comment by Sammy on 5/20 @ 10:51 pm #
Apparently not – Poll: Just 39% believe in evolution
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/02/12/1791814.aspx
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 10:53 pm #
If you believe anything out of the Gallup organization, you’re far more gullible that a religious believer, Sammy.
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 10:55 pm #
I also note that you’re dodging my questions.
Again.
Gödel, Sammy. Google it.
Comment by Makewi on 5/20 @ 10:55 pm #
I absolutely agree. In fact, I often tell people, if you want to have a happier life, the 10 commandments are a pretty good place to start (at least the last 8 commandments).
Am I correct in assuming that the 2 you take issue with are the first 2? I would suggest that if you can see the reasoning behind the other 8 being applicable to the foundation of a workable society and a happy individual, that the other 2 do as well. It might be easier, towards that end, if you think of God as someone who is not you and also is not any of your neighbors.
Comment by Makewi on 5/20 @ 10:57 pm #
Doh! The last 8, being read correctly, would remove my need to type my first question. Sloppy on my part. Apologies.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 10:57 pm #
Can you prove that justice exists?
No, because that is a purely human and subjective concept.
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 10:59 pm #
So, no such thing as justice, then. Per Sammy, we shouldn’t base laws or public policies on justice, since it can’t be proven to exist.
Thanks for clearing that up for us, Black.
Comment by Dash Rendar on 5/20 @ 10:59 pm #
Ok, this maybe a story too convoluted to convey in person without gesticulations but here goes:
Somewhere circa 2006ish, the at the time liberalish students at some fancy-ass liberal arts colleges had an epiphany. No, we’re certainly not atheists. The big bang happened somewhere around 14 billion years ago and we can tune in to the background radiation from said event, yet there is certainly something missing, some component lost, quantum or otherwise. Something we can’t measure which is apparent now but which will not be in 1-10 billion years hence (adjust the order of magnitude depending on which version of m-theory is proven). Hence the 2nd law of thermodynamics as a corollary to God. There is something lost, something fundamentally unknowable, thus a higher power. The factor that eludes us is the conditions precipitating the big bang, a time before time. The universe may indeed work in inflationary-deflationary cycles, but we don’t know. It may work through the hyperdimensional collision of brains, but what gives being to being? Simply, a higher power. A higher law of nature? Mayhaps. A higher, supernatural power is essentially indistinguishable from a higher natural power. This will lead ad infinitum back to the little room where God resides declaring the parameters of the strong nuclear force in universe M22373 or some such or whatever approximation you chose to entertain.
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 11:00 pm #
Black, multiple universes, rational?
More spatial dimensions than 3, rational?
A number, when squared, equals a negative, rational?
Comment by Dash Rendar on 5/20 @ 11:01 pm #
brains=branes
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 11:01 pm #
Hell, bh, the very notion of “number” itself is utterly non-physical.
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 11:02 pm #
At this point, I’d like to again point out that I’m actually agnostic. A non-believer.
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 11:03 pm #
BTW, Black, I’d recommend that you avoid quantum mechanics at all costs.
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 11:04 pm #
Truly, it is, SBP. And, as we think about these things, it takes our breath away beyond even the Grand Canyon or a beautiful woman.
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 11:05 pm #
I’m not sure what I believe, bh. Christianity as modulated through Greece and Rome seems to be a highly successful model for building a society, though.
Comment by Sdferr on 5/20 @ 11:05 pm #
What was it Bohr said SBP? Something like, if you think it is beginning to make sense then you clearly don’t understand it?
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 11:06 pm #
Yeah, something like that.
Black, what I’m referring to is that there are physical processes that depend on whether or not someone is looking at them. You can’t get any more subjective than that.
Comment by Dash Rendar on 5/20 @ 11:08 pm #
265 yes.
That’s what the the libs don’t get. You’re belief in god is as apparent to them as is us. If the only reality is the electrical one that exists in neurons, God exists in that same electrical reality. Thus God exists. Easy as a to b.
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 11:08 pm #
And Sammy, what Gödel showed was that there are propositions which are unprovable but true nonetheless.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 11:08 pm #
Yes, multiple universes can be rational if there is a basis for believing they exist. If there is an effect on our universe that can only be explained by the properties of another universe interacting with our own then it is rational to conclude another universe may exist. That doesn’t mean such a thing is actually correct but it does provide a basis for the conclusion. With testing and observation we will confirm or eliminate such ideas. It would be irrational to conclude other universes exist simply because we like the idea. If there is no detectable effect on our own there is no reason to think they would exist.
With god there is no effect in our universe that requires him to exist. There is also no evidence that he exists. Thus it is irrational to propose he exists. It is no different from proposing a giant teapot exists.
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 11:09 pm #
With god there is no effect in our universe that requires him to exist.
You have an alternative explanation for the Big Bang, I take it?
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 11:09 pm #
Black, what I’m referring to is that there are physical processes that depend on whether or not someone is looking at them. You can’t get any more subjective than that.
What processes?
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 11:10 pm #
I consider this to be the natural state of man. I’m smarter than most I meet in meatspace and I can personally vouch for the fact that I’m almost totally ignorant.
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 11:11 pm #
What processes?
Start here.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 11:12 pm #
You have an alternative explanation for the Big Bang, I take it?
Certainly. The giant teapot did it. Or a magic fish. Or the tooth fairy. Each of them is as likely or unlikely to be true as god. You’re using the god of gaps idea to suggest if we don’t have a complete answer then it must be god. But it doesn’t have to be god anymore than it has to be the giant teapot.
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 11:14 pm #
Same here. And I don’t like fixing things that work when there are an infinitely large number of ways to fail.
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 11:18 pm #
Certainly. The giant teapot did it
When your giant teapot belief inspires accomplishments equivalent to the Sistine Chapel, Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer, and the effective end of human chattel slavery, you can get back go me, m’kay?
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 11:18 pm #
I’m sorry, guys, you just have to stop referring to the magic teapot. It was a science popularizer trying to gauge the comprehension of his audience that came up that little cudgel you find so irresistible.
When I hear it, I think less of you.
Comment by Dash Rendar on 5/20 @ 11:19 pm #
If you’ll permit a brief comment on the life after:
Dreams. Ever look at your watch in one? No? And there are certainly those which are forgotten. The unregistered life of the mind, or some such. What is to permit you from living 100 million years in a dream, or longer, something approaching infinity, in an instant of time to your departed family? (ht Tibetan book of the dead, and no I haven’t been doing hallucinogens. Well, maybe)
Comment by Patrick Chester on 5/20 @ 11:19 pm #
Taylor wrote:
If forget who said it but it needs to be reiterated here: Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
…and when one spends much effort telling people who collect stamps what idiots they are and they shouldn’t bother collecting stamps because it’s a useless activity, what is that, then? Besides being an asshole, that is.
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 11:20 pm #
Oh, so they’re just parroting the “giant teapot” mahooha from another source?
Typical.
Comment by Makewi on 5/20 @ 11:20 pm #
I believe, but the arguments I am trying to make here have nothing to do with faith. To me, the aspect of faith is the next step. Which doesn’t mean you can’t have faith without making reasoned arguments, just that I think it’s worth more if you have both. There is a line, from Isaiah I believe, which makes essentially the same argument.
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 11:22 pm #
Black, let me tell you, you can’t test multiple universes or dimensions.
You’ll consider it to be a good fit with what you know, if anything.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 11:22 pm #
SPB, you’ll have to explain what you actually mean, I’m not sure you properly understand what is being described. Those principles do not suggest that observation is required for certain actions to occur, they desribe the limits of what observation can tell us about those actions.
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 11:23 pm #
dimensions=greater than our three spatial dimensions
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 11:25 pm #
Those principles do not suggest that observation is required for certain actions to occur
Read it again. Slowly. Especially the part about “consequences”.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 11:27 pm #
Black, let me tell you, you can’t test multiple universes or dimensions.
You may not be able to test for their actual existence but you can test for their effects on our own universe. For the moment the many universes theory serves as a stepping stone to better descriptions of the universe. It is almost certainly wrong but if it can provide a basis for correct prediction then it can stand a little while until further experiments show it to be false, or not
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 11:28 pm #
I’m not sure you properly understand what is being described.
Oh, and I’m pretty sure that I do understand what is being described.
Which is an entirely different thing from actually “understanding” it in any intuitive sense.
Not meaning to offend, Black, but just how far have you gotten in math and physics?
Comment by Makewi on 5/20 @ 11:29 pm #
I can explain it Black. Light is both a wave and a particle. When observed it acts as one, and when free of observation, it acts as the other. As it turns out, actual physics is far weirder than one might otherwise imagine.
Get your hands on “What the [bleep] do we know”.
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 11:30 pm #
Almost certainly false.
Possibly true.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 11:31 pm #
Read it again. Slowly. Especially the part about “consequencesâ€.
I’m familiar with those concepts which is why I asked you to explain what you actually mean. None of those consequences suggest actions which require an observer to occur, only the limits of observation.
Comment by pdbuttons on 5/20 @ 11:34 pm #
i’m a ‘lil teapot
i’m very short /and i’m stout!
i hate teabaggers
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 11:34 pm #
bh, if universes are proposed which have no need to exist and no measurable or detectable effect on our own then those universes would be irrational. If there is a measurable effect, the universes would have a rational basis.
Comment by Makewi on 5/20 @ 11:37 pm #
An inability to measure does not make something necessarily irrational. Otherwise a belief in germs in say, 1200 AD would be irrational.
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 11:38 pm #
None of those consequences suggest actions which require an observer to occur, only the limits of observation.
Nope. You’re missing the point.
The alternative interpretations are even worse news for your philosophical position.
For instance, the “Many Worlds” interpretation requires the existence of an infinite number of parallel universes which are utterly disjoint from our own. No clue as to how we could even begin to observe them.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 11:45 pm #
The alternative interpretations are even worse news for your philosophical position.
My position is that proposing god is irrational. I’m not really interested in arguing the various schools of thought about quantum mechanics.
Comment by SBP on 5/20 @ 11:46 pm #
My position is that proposing god is irrational. I’m not really interested in arguing the various schools of thought about quantum mechanics.
Summary: you’ve been backed into a corner.
Good night, Black. Long day ahead of me tomorrow.
Comment by Makewi on 5/20 @ 11:48 pm #
My position is that proposing god is irrational. I’m not really interested in arguing the various schools of thought about quantum mechanics.
Which would suggest that you are willing to consider what is rational and what is irrational only if they meet the terms which you propose. For the record, that’s personal bias.
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 11:49 pm #
Black, I don’t want to give you a hard time because I like the way you insist on falsifiability in regards to science. I do.
However, theoretical physics and number theory geeks in math keep disobeying this rule and gaining first downs and then touchdowns. If the engineers can keep up, great. If not, people will keep on proposing things.
It happens. Again and again.
I say it again: what you consider to be the “God question” is part of larger set.
Comment by bh on 5/20 @ 11:51 pm #
Okay, to bed myself.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 11:53 pm #
Summary: you’ve been backed into a corner.
I asked that you explain your position and instead you linked me to a wiki page without any explanation of what you believe it to mean. You seem to be proposing an idea that is not described on that page and you won’t elaborate further as to what you mean. Thus for me, there is no point in continuing discussion with you on this subject. I can link rebuttle wiki pages as my “case” but to do so would be stupid. I believe you know just enough about physics to think you’ve found a loophole for god to exist in but if so, that is purely your opinion. Quantum mechanics doesn’t actually say that, regardless of what you want it to say.
Comment by Black on 5/20 @ 11:56 pm #
Which would suggest that you are willing to consider what is rational and what is irrational only if they meet the terms which you propose. For the record, that’s personal bias.
I consider them only if the definition is not squishy and can be made to mean anything the speaker wishes. If someone says proposing god is rational but a giant teapot is not, then I know they are simply making shit up. I can’t argue against that other than to explain how either both or neither must fit the catagory.
Comment by maggie katzen on 5/20 @ 11:59 pm #
eh heh.
Comment by Makewi on 5/21 @ 12:24 am #
I consider them only if the definition is not squishy and can be made to mean anything the speaker wishes.
Which is fair. On that score, the universe did start, life did begin. Neither of the competing theories (God or Random Chance/abiogenesis) is, as of yet, outside of the realm of squishy.
Comment by Black on 5/21 @ 12:40 am #
God is not a competing theory in the classical sense. When considered from the initial “I don’t know” state there are an infinite number of unprovable causes for the beginning of the universe, of which god is just one. The answer to a question is not either “god or physical laws”. In the simplest example, if conditions permit one unprovable god to exist then they also permit two to exist and on to infinity. The question is then expanded to either “physical law or an infinite number of unprovable possibilities” as the cause of the universe. From such a choice there is no reason why god should be privilaged ahead of any of those other possibilities.
Comment by maggie katzen on 5/21 @ 12:44 am #
except that HE.RAWKS!!! even if he never left me a quarter for my tooth.
Comment by dicentra on 5/21 @ 1:34 am #
If god is part of the physical universe, he must take the form of energy or matter which also means he has a discrete form that must obey the laws of physics. He cannot be everywhere, he must travel only at the speed of light or slower, he is affected by gravity and so on. If there is a religion that actually believes this, I have never heard of it.
Geez, Black. It’s called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Do your homework.
Comment by Black on 5/21 @ 2:23 am #
I didn’t know that. Can you link me to some material discussing it?
Comment by Makewi on 5/21 @ 3:09 am #
If you look back to my earliest assertion in this thread, you will see that I am not privileging belief in God above other beliefs.
Comment by dicentra on 5/21 @ 3:13 am #
No, Black, I can’t.
Not because I’m being obstreperous, but because we don’t spend much time discussing God in the way we’re doing so here. Or if someone has, I can’t find it at 3 am.
Our scriptures tell us that matter is co-eternal with God, that he is a being of flesh and bone who exists in space and time (space and eternity would be more accurate), and that he is subject to Nature’s laws (a perfect subject, such that he has mastery over matter and energy).
More to the point, we don’t accept most neo-Platonic concepts of God, which posit a God who is everywhere, who is outside space, time, and nature, and who is the Absolute Other relative to our poor mortal selves, i.e., whatever categories we discern, none of them apply to God, making God utterly incomprehensible to us.
But I haven’t really seen any LDS discussion about how God is affected by gravity or by the speed of light or anything like that. Feel free to poke around here if you like. It’s an unofficial LDS site by some guy who likes to post stuff.
Comment by Black on 5/21 @ 3:53 am #
I’m not sure that a being with mastery over the universe can be reconciled with the idea that he is also part of that physical universe and bound by its laws. But your ideas intrigue me and I’d like to subscribe to your newsletter. Perhaps when it’s not 3am you could tell more of how it all fits together.
Comment by Black on 5/21 @ 3:59 am #
If you look back to my earliest assertion in this thread, you will see that I am not privileging belief in God above other beliefs
Your first post suggested that failure to prove god exists and failure to prove he doesn’t are equivilent, when they are not.
Comment by B Moe on 5/21 @ 5:20 am #
Might want to study up some before getting in any theological debates then.
Comment by Black on 5/21 @ 5:25 am #
Or you could shut the hell up if you have nothing but snark to contribute.
But if there are then let’s have the details and put the claim to the test.
Comment by B Moe on 5/21 @ 5:36 am #
And how exactly are you going to put a faith based claim to the test, Einstein?
Comment by Black on 5/21 @ 6:01 am #
Either you have an example or you don’t.
Comment by SBP on 5/21 @ 6:08 am #
You seem to be proposing an idea that is not described on that page
Yes, it is. You just don’t understand it.
Thus for me, there is no point in continuing discussion with you on this subject.
I’ll bet.
I believe you know just enough about physics to think you’ve found a loophole for god to exist in but if so, that is purely your opinion.
I believe that you’ve missed the point.
Entirely.
I’m pointing out that your “argument” doesn’t work, at least if one accepts the Copenhagen Interpretation of modern physics, just as Sammy’s argument does not work if one accepts modern mathematics (or, indeed, the existence of subjective concepts such as “justice”).
Those are entirely separate issues from whether God actually exists.
Comment by Black on 5/21 @ 6:21 am #
You say you understand it but I see no reason to believe you. If you can’t make a clear point in your own words then you have nothing to say.
Comment by SBP on 5/21 @ 6:41 am #
You say you understand it but I see no reason to believe you.
Imagine my dismay.
If you can’t make a clear point in your own words then you have nothing to say.
Spoken by the person who copied the “magic teapot” argument verbatim from another source.
You lose, Black.
Sorry.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/21 @ 8:47 am #
Depends on your initial postulates. There’s nothing incompatible between not believing in a Creator and “hold[ing] these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. That Creator could be evolutionary forces.
It’s true there’s no threat of ultimate punishment, but tit-for-tat game theory works, too.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/21 @ 8:48 am #
Except that cooperation is a better survival strategy.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/21 @ 8:51 am #
Not at all. The initial postulates have nothing to do with whether what follows is rationally argued and reasoned.
You’re the one declaring his postulates to be “rational” when, in reality, they’re as much a leap of faith as belief in a deity.
Learn some humility. Learn your own limits. Stop trying to cast your own prejudices as Pure Reason.
In other words, Grow Up.
Comment by SBP on 5/21 @ 8:52 am #
Except that cooperation is a better survival strategy.
Well, it depends.
If cooperation produces more resources for everybody, cooperate. If resources are scarce, cooperate with those who share (or are likely to share) your genes against those who don’t.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/21 @ 8:54 am #
And you continue to argue from a position of ignorance.
Have you ever tried to learn what people actually believe?
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/21 @ 8:59 am #
There is no evidence he does not.
And, seriously — you’ve demonstrated your ignorance of modern physics, so you really, really, really shouldn’t make blanket declarations about the nature of reality. Did you know that both the Catholic Church and Stephen Hawking agree that the question of “what was before the Big Bang” is a matter for religion?
And, again, you’re hiding behind the word “rational”. You’re using it the same way the most stereotypical Young Earth Creationist says “it’s in the Bible”. That you cannot comprehend that is almost sad.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/21 @ 9:04 am #
Is π energy or matter? What about i? Is e? These are all abstractions, but are as critical to our understanding of the universe as the very concepts of energy and matter. Hell, the expression that energy and matter are (somewhat) interchangeable depends on abstractions.
Is a cubic meter energy or matter? Is a second energy or matter? They, too, are abstractions, yet space and time undoubtedly exist.
Comment by SBP on 5/21 @ 9:07 am #
Rob, he’s what I like to call a scienceist (rather than a scientist).
He doesn’t really know much science, but has a religious faith in it nonetheless.
Personally, I’m fond of the section in (IIRC) the first chapter of The Feynman Lectures on Physics where Richard P. points out several things which aren’t science, but are nonetheless valid and real.
Comment by Black on 5/21 @ 9:07 am #
Here’s a thought experiement for you Rob. I propose a magical creature called a Bajoinket. It is green except that it is red. It never moves and only moves to eat. Use your “rational” process to deduce details about my irrational example.
Can you make a single true statement about the creature I have named?
Comment by SBP on 5/21 @ 9:08 am #
I’ll try to post the quote later on — running late for work right now.
Comment by SBP on 5/21 @ 9:09 am #
It is green except that it is red.
This is nonsense on its face, Black, since the definitions of red and green are mutually exclusive.
You don’t really know very much about science, do you?
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/21 @ 9:15 am #
Quantum physics is, strictly speaking, irrational (depending in large part on probabilities and chance, rather than mechanistic determinism — even Einstein had problems accepting the implications of quantum mechanics), yet it does a good enough job of describing reality that it’s the underpinnings of these computer thingies we’re using for this discussion.
You’ve argued that the “rational” position is that there’s no deity because there’s no need for one. Except that it’s perfectly reasonable — rational, even — to look at the way quantum mechanics works — probabilities and chance — and see room for a deity.
A sufficiently subtle omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent deity is indistinguishable from the absence of one.
It’s not “rational” to say that means there is not one, it’s just a different assumption.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/21 @ 9:19 am #
Neither is “not God”.
In fact, neither is a theory. They’re postulates, underlying assumptions, the place where you start.
You do realize that the underpinnings of modern biology, geology, and physics started when people, working from the assumption of a deity, went about trying to understand His work, right?
Your assumptions are no more valid than any other. Declaring them “rational” is just a way to dress up your prejudices to make yourself feel superior.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/21 @ 9:21 am #
Pot!
Kettle!
BANG!
Comment by Black on 5/21 @ 9:30 am #
Sadly, I have the scientific community and reality on my side. If either of you can source me a peer reviewed paper expressing the belief god exists because of quantum uncertainty or any other aspect you feel you can sneak the concept in on, go ahead. I’m not going to argue pointless semantics when you bring nothing original to the table and seek merely to blur the meaning of terms as a way of creating uncertainty where none exists. Pat yourselves on the back though, this means you’ve “won”. But you still can’t prove god. Shame about that.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/21 @ 9:31 am #
Um, Black, I’m not the one hiding behind the word “rational”. You’re the one doing that. I’m pointing out that it’s perfectly “rational” to make conclusions you’ve argued against if the initial assumptions are different. And, further, that there’s no reason to favor the “God” or the “not God” assumptions.
But if you really think there’s a point to this, then you must:
o Define “magical”.
o Define “creature”.
o Define “red”.
o Define “green”.
o Define “move”.
o Define “eat”.
o Define “never”.
o Define “only”.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/21 @ 9:37 am #
Wow. Bandwagon and argument by assertion.
Actually, the “scientific community” isn’t on your side. Two thirds of research scientists surveyed believe in God. That doesn’t mean he exists, it means your attempt to make an argumentum ad populum isn’t just fallacious, it’s based on bad data.
But, hell, go ahead, stomp your feet and declare yourself The Winnah! I’m sure it’ll do wonders for your self-esteem.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/21 @ 9:38 am #
He apparently doesn’t know that many scientists, either. I suspect his atheism is more a class marker than a reasoned position.
Comment by Sammy on 5/21 @ 9:46 am #
What does Gödel have to do with God? Sorry for being so thick, but you’ll have to spell it out for me.
Huh? Anything we don’t know is God? Sounds like “God in the Gaps”. Look at the computer your typing on, in your house with fiberglass insulation, with electricity coursing in, bathed in wireless signals. Luckily there have been people who say, “We don’t know. Maybe we can’t figure it out, but lets try!” Ancients assumed lightening was just God being angry, but people assumed there had to be a natural explanation. If they hadn’t, we certainly wouldn’t be having this conversation – over the Internet.
How did the Universe originate? We don’t know, but at least we’re working on it. We don’t just hand-wave and say “God” and move on. It’s always odd to me that people expect us to explain (in 2009) the formation of the universe, but no one expects and explanation for God. What created God?
Correct. God exists the same way that justice, joy, and beauty exist – as products of the human mind. Those concepts are useful, enriching, and possibly even essential, but God doesn’t part the atoms of the Red Sea any more than Joy does.
This is the notion of X is a pretty good theory. Supported by heaps of evidence of evidence and experiments. It’s made predictions which have been born out, but X doesn’t quite explain Y – therefor God did it.
What’s your explanation for God?
SBP, you throw out half formed statements, and then accuse us of saying we put words in your mouth. Are you saying if it inspired something awesome, it must be God? Other Gods inspired the pyramids, the Acropolis and Greek art. The quest for scientific discovery inspired putting a man on the moon, the Hubble space telescope, the Internet. To which should I bow down?
Collect all the stamps you want. Just don’t try to ban stem cell research because you believe it angers your stamp collection.
I’ll jump in on this one. I can’t speak for Black, but I’m not saying, “I know for certain that there is no God, and you’re a moron for believing it.” Instead, I’m suggesting that you can believe whatever you want, but at the point you want to institute policy based on your beliefs, it’s reasonable to ask for evidence.
People come up with all kinds of justifications for policy, and it’s worth poking at the foundations. If I say, “Stem cell research must be funded because it’s the will of my invisible magic teapot.” I think you get to be a skeptic, and I think the burden is on me to offer evidence.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/21 @ 10:13 am #
Does it ever occur to you to actually learn the positions of the people who disagree with, or are you satisfied that your bigotry gives you the complete picture?
Comment by bh on 5/21 @ 10:29 am #
How come the strong form atheists aren’t out hectoring pure mathematicians?
Sammy gives his answer, because this is a political issue for him.
Comment by Sammy on 5/21 @ 11:37 am #
Sorry, that was more of a “for example” issue. I know many believers who are also proponents of stem cell research, so I don’t mean to imply that the two are mutually exclusive. I also know of many believers who accept evolution.
On the other hand, there’s Dover Delaware, where a school board members sought to dial back the teaching of evolution and introduce intelligent design because it was more consistent with their religious belief.
There’s the official Alaska GOP Platform, which says:
http://www.alaskarepublicans.com/PartyPlatform.aspx
Similar wording is in the Oklahoma GOP platform:
http://www.tulsagop.org/about/2009_platform_tulsa1/
Sorry if I’m painting Republicans and believers with too broad of a brush, but the GOP platform, in at least some states, wants US foreign policy and public education to move into alignment with their God story. Show me evidence of this God (again, he could just make a blog post magically appear here), otherwise it’s policy based on fictional literary work. We could just as well fight the “War on Vampires.”
Comment by sdferr on 5/21 @ 11:48 am #
A proper skepticism of the claims these fellows make on behalf of reason (and themselves) may be warranted. Most especially in light of their steadfast refusal to eagerly and carefully examine their own beliefs and presuppositions, yet appear content to focus on the beliefs of others and with little to no prodding derisively criticize them, though they cannot be brought to make any effort to understand those others beliefs from within their point of view. Further, to the extent that political ideology creeps into their views of human nature, human capacity, human interaction, we (and they) have all the more cause to keep a heightened skepticism.
Nothing would deter them from a careful examination of their own axiomata and hidden presuppositions if their object were to get to the truth of human circumstance, as opposed to say, striking a pose of knowing moral superiority. On the other hand, as we admit to being uncertain and ignorant ourselves, if they are in genuine possession of the truth with regard to abiding human questions, what is good for man, what is justice among men, what is wisdom, what to be courageous, what to be prudent and moderate in action, we would do well to cling to them without end and learn what they have to teach before we let them go, for they would be like as unto gods, would they not? (Heh.)
Comment by bh on 5/21 @ 12:13 pm #
Hey, worked for Obama.
Comment by Sammy on 5/21 @ 12:41 pm #
Which beliefs am I refusing to examine?
Comment by sdferr on 5/21 @ 12:58 pm #
You have to ask me Sammy? That borders right up against a quid erat demonstrandem, doesn’t it?
Comment by dicentra on 5/21 @ 1:19 pm #
I’m not sure that a being with mastery over the universe can be reconciled with the idea that he is also part of that physical universe and bound by its laws.
You’re arguing from a neo-Platonic concept of God and the universe. My theology rejects utterly neo-Platonism. You’ll have to adjust your entire paradigm, which I don’t expect you can do overnight.
I propose a magical creature called a Bajoinket. It is green except that it is red. It never moves and only moves to eat. Use your “rational” process to deduce details about my irrational example.
Your proposal is the linguistic equivalent of an Escher sketch, wherein the conventions that are used to represent three dimensions on a two-dimensional plane are manipulated such that Escher could represent objects that cannot exist in three dimensions.
The fact that you can use language to postulate irrational and non-existent “signifieds” contributes nothing to the discussion of whether there’s a God. And neither do any of the comments in this thread, for that matter. If you want to find God, you have to look where he is, using the instruments that can detect him.
Otherwise, you’re using an anemometer to detect distant stars.
Comment by Sammy on 5/21 @ 1:25 pm #
Since you won’t answer it, I’ll just guess. I’m assuming your asking me to examine my belief that the God described in the Bible is extremely unlikely. Remember, I was a believer for 25 years. It was my examination of those beliefs that lead me to the conclusion that the most likely explanation of God and the Bible is that it’s a work of fiction. If you like, I can enumerate the evidence that I’ve examined in favor of, and in contradiction to, the biblical God, but it’s certainly a belief that I spent a long time examining.
Suffice it to say that the hypothesis stating that the biblical God exists, is not sufficiently supported to use as the foundation of public policy. And as you’ve noticed, this is a notion I’m certainly willing to openly discuss.
Comment by sdferr on 5/21 @ 1:28 pm #
Not to be too jocular about it, but a little jocular still, swing and a miss. Get some glasses maybe?
Comment by bh on 5/21 @ 1:30 pm #
It’s becoming clear to me that I know even less about Mormonism than I thought.
Comment by bh on 5/21 @ 1:33 pm #
And, for the record, my pronunciation is so bad, I don’t even type Latin.
Comment by sdferr on 5/21 @ 1:41 pm #
dum deh dum dum, duuuuuh!
Comment by B Moe on 5/21 @ 1:54 pm #
Either you have an example or you don’t.
It’s irrational to try to explain the unexplainable.
Disprove that.
Comment by bh on 5/21 @ 2:07 pm #
Okay, I just read that again and wanted to say that my comment at #350 wasn’t referring to quid/quod above. Merely an embarrassing recollection of when I mispronounced cogito for a couple weeks in high school. I mispronounce, therefore I am.
Comment by Makewi on 5/21 @ 2:11 pm #
Your first post suggested that failure to prove god exists and failure to prove he doesn’t are equivilent, when they are not.
They are, unless you privilege scientific proofs as the only mechanism you can use to gain understanding of anything, ever. Which is a little beyond the scope of it’s capabilities as a tool. I can propose a theory about the big bang or abiogenesis or string theory, but if I cannot follow the steps to their conclusion using the tools we have at hand, then it must cease to lose the privilege that you afford it.
Comment by sdferr on 5/21 @ 2:14 pm #
Heh, bh, they gave us a choice between French and Latin back in highschool and I picked German.
Comment by SBP on 5/21 @ 4:56 pm #
What does Gödel have to do with God?
Gödel demonstrated that, in any mathematical system which includes basic arithmetic, there are statements which are unprovable, yet nonetheless true.
Which, unless you’re willing to abandon mathematics, utterly destroys your “argument”.
I also take note (again) that justice fails to meet your criteria for “existence”, and thus, by your own “argument” we should not take justice into account when creating laws and public policy.
Naturally, you completely ignored that, as you do every point to which you have no response.
You and Black got your asses handed to you in this thread, Sammy.
Seriously. It was simply embarrassing.
End of discussion.
Comment by SBP on 5/21 @ 5:00 pm #
Oh, and Sammy?
It’s been pointed out to you before that many people on this site aren’t “Republicans”, but you persist in assuming that we are.
Why is that, pray tell?
Comment by SBP on 5/21 @ 5:17 pm #
In case anyone is interested in an informal sketch of the Gödel proof, it goes something like this:
Theorem: In any logically consistent formal system there are propositions which are true, but not provable.
Proof:
Consider the proposition:
P1: This proposition is not provable.
By the technique of reductio ad absurdum:
First, assume that P1 is false. If P1 is false, it must be provable. But if the system is consistent, only true statements are provable. Therefore P1 would have to be true. This is an absurdity. Thus, P1 cannot be false.
If P1 cannot be false, it must be true, but if it is true, it must be unprovable by definition.
Therefore P1 is true, but unprovable.
QED.
That’s the basic idea. I could do a formal proof, but I’d have to spend a little time tooling up for it. It’s been a few years since I went through it.
Now, one might claim that there’s something weird going on here, and that things only break down like this with contrived examples, or only in some weird branch of abstruse mathematical logic. What Gödel did, though, was show that in any formal system which contains the axioms of basic arithmetic, propositions isomorphic to P1 can be constructed (he did this by a method which was novel at the time, but seems quite obvious to us today — encoding mathematical statements as numbers).
So there’s this big, gaping hole in mathematics… again, not out at the frontiers, but in friggin’ arithmetic. This was very surprising to the mathematics community — it shook things up almost as much as quantum mechanics did the physics world.
Sammy and Black are still living in some kind of pre-Gödel, pre-quantum Newtonian clockwork world.
Doesn’t work that way, guys.
As an aside, ever notice that “progressives”, as a rule, tend to run about a hundred years behind the times? Marxist economics, Freudian psychoanalysis, obsolete notions of the physical sciences and mathematics…. one might almost suspect that they’d received subpar educations.
Comment by bh on 5/21 @ 6:14 pm #
Good try, SBP, but Gödel never rebutted the scary smart “magic teapot” argument. So, well, he’s a dumb jerk.
Joking aside, the idea they seem stuck on is falsifiability. Not proven? Not real. Maybe they’re just afraid of “not knowing”, which would either lead to faith (and then possibly spiritual revelation) or agnosticism.
Comment by dicentra on 5/21 @ 7:04 pm #
It’s becoming clear to me that I know even less about Mormonism than I thought.
That does not make you a club of one, believe you me.
Comment by Black on 5/21 @ 9:12 pm #
Your proposal is the linguistic equivalent of an Escher sketch, wherein the conventions that are used to represent three dimensions on a two-dimensional plane are manipulated such that Escher could represent objects that cannot exist in three dimensions.
That was precisely my intention dicentra. To rebut the notion that you could make rational judgements about an irrational subject. If the subject is not bound by the rules of logic then you cannot make any statement about it that is certain of being true.
Comment by Black on 5/21 @ 9:42 pm #
A proper skepticism of the claims these fellows make on behalf of reason (and themselves) may be warranted.
Atheism doesn’t make any claims. As I noted before, atheism is the position of saying “show meâ€. It makes no further statement than that. It makes no claims. If you can’t provide some kind of evidence of the supernatural then the atheist regards the claim as untrue, no different than the tooth fairy. It is not a belief system to deny the existence of the tooth fairy for there is nothing to deny. It simply never was, or is. One does not “claim†there is no tooth fairy. There just isn’t. That is atheism. God and the tooth fairy are equivalent, neither ever was or is. If you want to convince the atheist otherwise it is very simple to do so. “Show meâ€.
Comment by SBP on 5/21 @ 9:53 pm #
You’ve simply replaced one religious belief with another, Black.
Even worse, it’s one that’s demonstrably wrong. Your idea of “science” is a hundred years out of date.
Sorry.
Comment by Black on 5/21 @ 10:06 pm #
Your entire argument, now that I have gone back through it consists of word games, twisting established meanings into new shapes in order to create confusion over exactly what is being said. I won’t be wasting further time playing “guess the meaning” with you.
Comment by SBP on 5/21 @ 10:09 pm #
That’s nice, Black.
Run along, now, while your faith is still untarnished.
Comment by Black on 5/21 @ 10:43 pm #
God would be so proud that the peak of his followers abilities can just about lift him into the catagory of imaginary creatures no different from pixies or the tooth fairy. Behold the awesomeness! Take it man, if that’s a victory for you then you’re welcome to it.
Comment by SBP on 5/21 @ 10:45 pm #
That’s nice, Black.
Blatantly misrepresent my stated position. Very “scientific” of you.
I thought you weren’t going to waste any more time here?
Comment by meya on 5/21 @ 10:46 pm #
“You’ve simply replaced one religious belief with another, Black.
Even worse, it’s one that’s demonstrably wrong”
See black, the problem with your religion is that it is wrong.
Comment by SBP on 5/21 @ 10:47 pm #
Black, meet SFAG.
She’s nearly as mendacious as you are. I’m sure you two will get along famously.
Comment by bh on 5/21 @ 10:48 pm #
Please say magic teapot or tooth fairy again. It’s one of the ways I can tell you’re scary smart.
Comment by SBP on 5/21 @ 10:58 pm #
bh: poor guys. They came here expecting a bunch of semi-retarded cousin-marrying eighth grade dropout hillbillies.
It must’ve been a rather unpleasant experience.
Comment by bh on 5/21 @ 10:59 pm #
Funny thing? I love the guy but I kinda blame Popper for some of this confusion.
Comment by Black on 5/21 @ 11:12 pm #
I thought you weren’t going to waste any more time here?
I won’t be wasting anymore time on you, because you argue dishonestly. But not everyone here is like you.
Comment by bh on 5/21 @ 11:14 pm #
Lest I malign Popper, I simply mean to say that when he proposed that falsifiability should be considered a criteria for deciding whether or not something is scientific he should have added a sentence in bold letters, “AND THAT’S ALL I MEAN.”
Comment by Black on 5/21 @ 11:23 pm #
I think any reasonable reading of his intent would take that for granted. Falsifiability clearly can’t work outside the realm of the scientific nor is it even necessary.
Comment by bh on 5/21 @ 11:30 pm #
Good, would you further agree that pure math is not a science?
Comment by bh on 5/21 @ 11:31 pm #
Or logic? Or Aesthetics? Or, everything that is not science?
Comment by bh on 5/21 @ 11:32 pm #
That’s one simple path to take, consider religion to not be science.
Comment by bh on 5/21 @ 11:41 pm #
Towards the God, tooth fairy argument, lets put it into better terms.
Set A: unknown, infinite and true. (Contains 2+2=4, my name is…, etc)
Set B: unknown, infinite and untrue. (Contains 2+2=5, my dog can fly, etc)
I agree that the proper outlook for things you don’t know about is “I don’t know”. However, I stop there.
Because, if you are saying that you can’t believe in a god because there is no evidence, by that criteria, you’re saying you also don’t believe in Set A. Which contains an infinite number of true things.
Comment by bh on 5/21 @ 11:45 pm #
“No evidence” equals “no evidence”. That’s it. You can take no further step.
Okay, I’m done. Next time around, maybe be less insulting with your analogies, and, from my experience, SBP responds accurately to what he can read in the tone of peoples comments.
Comment by maggie katzen on 5/21 @ 11:50 pm #
says you. where’d my teeth go?
Comment by Black on 5/21 @ 11:58 pm #
In my experience in these kinds of discussions I always find that attempts to use logic or scientific method to allow for the possibility of god always end up in a world of stupid. This occurs because people with a belief in god always craft faulty assumptions or wrongly apply catagories etc. that just by pure chance happen to let the concept of god in. Any line of argument or reasoning that puts god on the same footing as the tooth fairy is as far as I am concerned, without merit. Expanding the world of real unknowns into a world of limitless fantasy makes all things possible when that is clearly not the case.
Comment by maggie katzen on 5/22 @ 12:05 am #
um, so you were just funnin’ us at #50?
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 12:05 am #
There is also no merit in any argument that allows one particular god or gods in through the door but uses a double standard to stop the thousands of other of gods throughout history getting in too. If arguments are to be applied, they must be applied equally to all cases. Attempts to do otherwise are intellectually dishonest and there is no reason or need to rebut them.
Comment by maggie katzen on 5/22 @ 12:07 am #
eh?
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 12:07 am #
um, so you were just funnin’ us at #50?
I don’t see the distinction. In both statements I was denying the existence of the tooth fairy and equating the existence of god as being in the same catagory.
Comment by bh on 5/22 @ 12:08 am #
I don’t think you get my point or those two comments aren’t directed towards me.
Comment by maggie katzen on 5/22 @ 12:10 am #
well, okay, but again. Where did my teeth go? and where did that money come from?
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 12:10 am #
but uses a double standard
eh?
For instance, the christian god is true because the bible says so, yet the texts of the greeks or egyptians are not also evidence for the existence of their gods. Either all religious texts are evidence or none are. Not that anyone has yet used that particular position, I was merely stating that double standards to not make a coherant argument.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 12:11 am #
well, okay, but again. Where did my teeth go? and where did that money come from?
The giant teapot.
Comment by maggie katzen on 5/22 @ 12:11 am #
oh, you just like to see yourself type. alrighty then. maybe you should start your own blog.
Comment by maggie katzen on 5/22 @ 12:12 am #
ha! no, giant teapots don’t do that. They float in space.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 12:15 am #
They were directed at you bh. “No evidence” is not the same as “possible but undiscovered”. No evidence can be an indication of a false proposition OR a proposition not yet discovered. As the supernatural would destroy our entire understanding of the universe and violate just about every law and constant imaginable, I tend to place god & his friends in the “false proposition” catagory. Just like the tooth fairy.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 12:16 am #
The teapot has a transporter pad on board.
Comment by bh on 5/22 @ 12:19 am #
Exactly! Now, with no evidence, tell me how you sort things into Set A and Set B.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 12:20 am #
I’m not saying no one has used a double standard maggie, arguments for god are always rife with them. Just no one has used that particular one yet.
Comment by bh on 5/22 @ 12:21 am #
And, please, stay on point.
Comment by bh on 5/22 @ 12:24 am #
Actually, I’m off to bed.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 12:26 am #
It’s quite easy. Concepts that voilate the known laws of the universe go into “not likely or impossible” set and concepts that are not in violation but as yet unproven go into the “likely or possible” set. It is possible that one day a new concept will come along which violates all known laws of the universe because our laws are wrong, an idea which itself goes into the unlikely set but until that day the known laws are the gold standard between possible and impossible. The only alternative is to open the doors to every conceivable fantasy as “possible” which while it may be technically correct, is also stupid and pointless.
Comment by bh on 5/22 @ 12:29 am #
But, out of concern for reason, what you keep alternating over to is that you can conceive of gods who are either self-contradictory or contradictory to the universe. Of course you can. But, as you have no evidence for him, you have no guidance towards his characteristics.
Check the ignostics.
Okay, I really have to sleep.
Comment by maggie katzen on 5/22 @ 12:36 am #
I think we can file that one under “unproven”
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 12:41 am #
Ahh, but here’s the rub. Were I to grant your statement true, not only I wouldn’t have any guidance regarding his characteristics but no one else would either. In which case establishing a religion around a god with no known or identifiable characteristics would be foolish indeed. Maybe he is a powerless god, maybe he is evil and established humanity to watch the slaughter and mayhem. No one would know. Unless we are to resort to the double standard of “my holy texts are right and yours are wrong”. Because all the ancient gods can slip in the door using your original classification too.
But I don’t regard god as not real because of any internally constradictions, he isn’t real because he can be classified by the same standard that any fantasy character can be that we know isn’t real. Again, all you have done is place god on the same footing as the tooth fairy. People made him up for their own reasons and there is no evidence of him or the tooth fairy, which we also made up.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 12:44 am #
I won’t be wasting anymore time on you, because you argue dishonestly.
Be specific.
Thanks.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 12:46 am #
For instance, the christian god is true because the bible says so, yet the texts of the greeks or egyptians are not also evidence for the existence of their gods.
I see. Now you’re arguing with people who aren’t even here.
What was that about “dishonesty”?
Comment by maggie katzen on 5/22 @ 12:46 am #
well, there is evidence, you just choose to discount it because, um, SCIENCE! for instance, you’ll never convince me that that canceled high school choir rehearsal right after I’d prayed for it was a coincidence. but whatevs.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 12:48 am #
As the supernatural would destroy our entire understanding of the universe and violate just about every law and constant imaginable,
Since you’ve already shown yourself to have an extremely poor grasp of modern physics and modern mathematics, I submit that “your entire understanding” isn’t exactly a gold standard of TRVTH, Black.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 12:52 am #
Good, would you further agree that pure math is not a science?
Black already admitted that the concept of justice isn’t a science.
That doesn’t mean the concept does not exist.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 1:00 am #
Oh, it’s the quantum mechanics expert who can’t explain the uncertainty principle, heh. Hint for the future. When you lie about your education and abilities, try to lie to people who don’t know any better than you do, that way they are unlikely to question your lies. But please direct your questions elsewhere, I won’t be spending time bothering with such a dishonest participant.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 1:02 am #
Oh, it’s the quantum mechanics expert who can’t explain the uncertainty principle, heh.
Liar.
I won’t be spending time bothering with such a dishonest participant.
Translation: you have no response.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 1:03 am #
When did I “lie” about my “education and experience”, Black?
Be specific.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 1:04 am #
For that matter, when did I claim to be a “quantum mechanics expert”?
I’ve studied it in college physics classes, yes, but I’m not a physicist. Just an educated person.
Which you are not.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 1:06 am #
I am responding to people interested in fair discussion. That just doesn’t include you.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 1:09 am #
I am responding to people interested in fair discussion.
You claimed that I “lied” about my “education and experienceâ€
But somehow you’re not capable of providing an example.
Hmm… looks like someone is lying here.
Hint: it’s not me.
It also looks like someone is a big ol’ hypocrite here — demands hard “scientific” proof of religous and philosophical concepts, but isn’t capable of providing the same for his own nakedly dishonest assertions.
Hint: that’s also not me.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 1:35 am #
Yeah, I’m going to waste time justifying myself to a dishonest actor. Comment if it makes you feel good, but you’ll get no reply.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 1:38 am #
So, you can’t, in fact, show that I “lied” about my about my “education and experienceâ€.
“Dishonest actor” indeed.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 1:41 am #
Oh, and it does make me feel good, Black.
There’s nothing I find more amusing that watching a pompous idiot self-destruct.
Comment by maggie katzen on 5/22 @ 1:45 am #
what? again?
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 1:46 am #
I think this is about the tenth time he’s declared victory and ran away, maggie.
I also suspect he’s now posting as “Steven” over in the other thread.
Comment by maggie katzen on 5/22 @ 1:47 am #
nah, surely we’d have heard about his PHD before now.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 1:51 am #
I’m pretty sure the Ph.D. in question is….ah…newly-minted.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 3:43 am #
I’m not running from anything but it’s nice of y’all to think that “victory” is blabbering on until people get bored and leave. That’s perhaps marginally more trivial than the idea of “victory” being the act of elevating god to the status of the tooth fairy. What funny people you are. Arguing about god must be the only subject where victory is constituted by anything that isn’t a crushing loss through abosolute proof that you are wrong. I guess you “win” all the time with that criteria.
However, my refusal to reply to your pointless and dishonest word games SBP seems to be getting to you somehow. You keep posting bait as if that makes your pointless jibber-jabber more relevant.
Comment by lee on 5/22 @ 4:32 am #
Believing God exists is like believing love exists. In fact, I believe God is love.
As pointed out way back at #20, I can’t prove my Mom loves me by scientific
methods, but I can interpret actions of hers as evidence that she does.
Mr. Black person, do you believe your mother loves(loved) you, and if so, what proof do you have?
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 4:59 am #
Brain chemistry doesn’t require faith to exist.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 7:24 am #
However, my refusal to reply to your pointless and dishonest word games SBP seems to be getting to you somehow.
Oh, it’s “getting to me” in the sense that I’m highly amused by you.
You said that I “lied” about my ““education and experienceâ€.
Please demonstrate where I did that.
I don’t see how that’s a “word game”. You made a statement of fact.
Back it up or STFU.
Thanks.
Comment by sdferr on 5/22 @ 7:31 am #
Did you happen to notice, Mr. Black, that in the post from which you quoted the words “atheism” and “atheist” do not appear? If you dwell on that fact for a moment, you may discover something useful. I can hope so, anyway.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 8:06 am #
Well, stop taking the discussions there and it won’t happen.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 8:10 am #
Um, pardon me, but you’re the one who tried this tack:
You’ve not addressed the fact that your assessment of the beliefs of the “scientific community” was wrong, and that the claim of “reality” being on your side is an assertion of the truth of what you’re arguing.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 9:55 am #
Back it up or STFU.
Hah, like I owe you an explanation. Why don’t you take it home to momma if you want someone to pay you attention
Well, stop taking the discussions there and it won’t happen.
And you sir, are the worst offender. You’re as bad as SBP with your idiotic word games and twisting of meanings. I’d have as much chance of getting sense from a sack full of cats.
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 10:03 am #
Black – you were the one that questioned SBP’s education and experience.
Gentlemen (a group which does not include Senor Racist) – You have been more than patient with this mental midget. Your patience should be commended, though it has to be obvious that discussion is the last thing this little troll is looking for.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 10:03 am #
Hah, like I owe you an explanation. Why don’t you take it home to momma if you want someone to pay you attention
Very “scientific”, Black.
Hint: you lose.
Again.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 10:14 am #
Did you happen to notice, Mr. Black…
I did notice that and I chose to ignore it for the most part and instead restate my position regarding atheism in order to focus the thread. I don’t really care what your opinion on courage or wisdom is and I have no interest in telling you about it at this time. This thread is convoluted enough already. Perhaps another time though.
I’ve seen many versions of your “be more open minded” plea which assumes that as I don’t agree with your superstitions that I must not have considered them because an “open minded” person would of course agree right away. Let me tell you, it is because I have looked at those superstitions that I don’t agree with them. I’m not going to change my opinion on the tooth fairy just because someone suggests I reconsider my position. That facts of it being a made up creature haven’t change since last I thought about it and as god falls into the same catagory of make-believe beings I see no reason to reconsider my position on his existence either.
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 10:19 am #
I bet Senor Negro and Nishit would sit around moaning “Science!” while practicing self-love …
Comment by sdferr on 5/22 @ 10:26 am #
My superstitions, Mr Black? What ever are you talking about? Has it occurred to you that it may just be possible that I am not a religious believer? Is there anything I have written in this thread that would persuade you that I am a religious believer (let me invite you to re-read a handful of my posts here and then re-think what it is you are on about)? You have lept an unwarranted conclusion, I’m afraid.
Which, well, we all make mistakes now and then so I won’t hold any of that against you, no worries. Though, I must say, I’d hardly withdraw my call for a skeptical stance toward you and your claims on those grounds.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 10:34 am #
Haha, oh NO! The umpire of the internet has said I’ve lost. What’s the matter SBP, can’t stop posting because people will think you’ve got nothing left to say? Last man posting on a dead thread “wins”, is that it? Don’t worry then, I’ll be bored soon and then you can get the final word in and congratulate yourself on winning the internet.
If only this were a Dr. Sanity comment thread I could ask her what insecurity you are displaying by assuming a role of authority and declaring yourself a winner when no one even cares what you think.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 10:40 am #
Hmm… still not seeing where I “lied” about my ““education and experienceâ€.
All I see is you getting more and more agitated, in the usual fashion of bigoted cultists when their beliefs are questioned.
It’s quite amusing, Black.
Oh, and I’m a long-time, respected commenter here.
You, on the other hand, are a drive-by troll.
Have a nice day. :-)
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 10:42 am #
You have lept an unwarranted conclusion, I’m afraid.
Perhaps I did assume in error then. I apologise for tainting you with the brush of superstition if that is the case.
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 10:43 am #
SBP – But, but, but … its position is all science-y !!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 10:44 am #
Don’t forget the magic teapot, JD.
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 10:44 am #
Now Senor Negro wants to brush something on someone’s taint ?! Good Allah, how low will the drive-by’s sink?
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 10:45 am #
I’M AN OFFENDER!!! WOO HOO!!!
What’s wrong — can’t stand up to someone who expects you to question your basic assumptions?
But what’s the consensus of the sacked-cat community in re religion? You may have a better chance of getting that correct than you did with your appeal to the authority of the “scientific community”.
Which you still haven’t admitted was an error.
Odd.
The funny thing is, Black, no one here expects or even particularly wants you to change your mind. I certainly don’t; I don’t give a rat’s ass either way. I know I cannot argue someone out of their religious beliefs, whether those beliefs are theism or atheism. I don’t get the sense from anyone else that they want to change your mind, either.
And your blanket rejection of “be more open minded” makes me think a couple of things: 1) you’re not all that clear on the need to understand the viewpoints of others, 2) you’re not all that secure in what you believe, 3) you’re the one insisting that everyone else accept your conclusions.
What I’ve asked is that you stop abusing the word “rational”. All that “rational” means is “based on or in accordance with reason or logic”. It doesn’t mean “correct” or even “smart”. If your base assumptions are wrong, reason — rational thought — will lead to incorrect conclusions. The existence or non-existence of the divine is an assumption, and making a particular assumption does not (in general) make a person smarter or dumber than any other person.
This is particularly true since you’ve repeatedly revealed a profound depth of ignorance on these matters. You say you’ve “looked at those superstitions”, yet make essential errors as to what believers actually believe. You refer to the authority of science, yet have little idea what the science actually says. You attempt to cite the majority of opinion among scientists, yet what they really believe undercuts your claim.
Thus, your “rational” thought is built from a frame of bad information.
Learn some humility. Learn some empathy. Learn something deeper than the popular press gloss on science and faith. Trace someone else’s line of reasoning from a different set of assumptions without assuming it’s an assault on you personally, and do so honestly, so that you can see how someone can rationally reach a different conclusion.
In short, grow the hell up.
Comment by sdferr on 5/22 @ 10:48 am #
It isn’t as though I didn’t try (more than once, actually) to help you out. What was it, then, do you think, that is in you which caused you to persist, even in the face of those proffered hints?
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 10:48 am #
In short, grow the hell up.
Indeed.
Black and Sammy are perfect examples of what I call “grandma” atheists.
They do it because it makes Daddy yell and Grandma cry at holiday dinners.
It’s exactly analogous to Nishbot’s claim to be a “Muslim”.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 10:50 am #
Well, so long as it’s a soft-bristle brush…
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 10:52 am #
Oh, well if I’m nothing but a troll then simply stop posting and I’ll just chat with the other remaining people. But I’ve got a hunch that you’re too insecure to do that, people might think you’ve “lost” something, that you’ve been beaten. And that worries you apparently as you are so eager to declare yourself a winner and move on, you must have done so a dozen times already and yet each time come back to keep fighting. Not really the behavior of a winner as such, more of someone who seeks recognition even if it has to be on such a trivial level as an internet comment thread.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 10:53 am #
Ah, but sdferr, you were not showing abject agreement with the “rational” thoughts of Mr. Black, and there are only two possibilities in this discussion, right?
RIGHT?!
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 10:54 am #
Oh, well if I’m nothing but a troll then simply stop posting
No.
you must have done so a dozen times already and yet each time come back to keep fighting.
I’ve never said I was going to stop posting. You, on the other hand have done so multiple times.
Still waiting for you to show where I “lied” about my “education and experience”.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 10:55 am #
Is it just me, or is comment #444 a classic example of someone living a life unexamined?
Ah, well. It’s ‘hammer time.
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 10:56 am #
The fact that the Cardinals swept the Cubs in proof that God loves me, and wants me to be happy. Only a kind and benevolent God would have given me such a gift on this lovely week, a perfect beginning to a wonderful holiday weekend.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 10:56 am #
What I’ve asked is that you stop abusing the word “rationalâ€. All that “rational†means is “based on or in accordance with reason or logicâ€. It doesn’t mean “correct†or even “smartâ€. If your base assumptions are wrong, reason — rational thought — will lead to incorrect conclusions. The existence or non-existence of the divine is an assumption, and making a particular assumption does not (in general) make a person smarter or dumber than any other person.
As I said earlier, you’ve managed to lift god up to the same level as the tooth fairy. That’s as far as rational thought permits the concept to move because neither logic nor reason provide support for the realm of fantasy.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 10:57 am #
SBP, you claimed to know something about physics. Something which Mr. Black does not know. Since there’s nothing Mr. Black does not know about science, you were clearly lying.
See? It’s all perfectly rational.
Comment by Darleen on 5/22 @ 10:57 am #
Comment by lee on 5/22 @ 4:32 am # |Edit This
Believing God exists is like believing love exists. In fact, I believe God is love.
As pointed out way back at #20, I can’t prove my Mom loves me by scientific
methods, but I can interpret actions of hers as evidence that she does.
Mr. Black person, do you believe your mother loves(loved) you, and if so, what proof do you have?
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 4:59 am # |Edit This
Brain chemistry doesn’t require faith to exist.
BWHAHAHAH… oh Blacky you slay me. “love” is nothing but brain chemicals. Kinda like saying it is the electric pulses along a copper line IS the message of the conversation, not just the means of transportation of the message.
What a sad little dna creature you are to see the wonders of the universe and think “accident”. Please seek to deactivate your chemical reactions as there is no reason or meaning to your remaining active.
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 10:59 am #
declare yourself a winner and move on, you must have done so a dozen times already and yet each time come back to keep fighting. Not really the behavior of a winner as such, more of someone who seeks recognition even if it has to be on such a trivial level as an internet comment thread.
Isn’t this precisely what all of the Leftists, all of the supporters of Teh One have been doing since November?
The complete lack of introspection exhibited by the trolls is always so … sad.
Senor Black – You questioned SBP’s education and experience, explicitly. Are you going to offer anything to support this, or are we to take it on faith that you know of which you speak?
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 11:00 am #
This is particularly true since you’ve repeatedly revealed a profound depth of ignorance on these matters. You say you’ve “looked at those superstitionsâ€, yet make essential errors as to what believers actually believe.
If someone tells me they believe in the tooth fairy I don’t need to hear their life story and every detail of their faith to decide it is wholly made up. The big picture is enough, the details matter not at all as to whether the tooth fairy is real. Or for that matter, any other made up entity.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 11:00 am #
1) I’ve done nothing of the sort.
2) Neither logic nor reason have anything to say about the existence or non-existence of the divine.
*sigh*
You’re still trying to mask your assumptions as the fruit of Reason. Ah, well. Perhaps there’s no teaching you.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 11:02 am #
In other words, “I refuse to consider anyone else’s viewpoints, or to even question my own beliefs.”
You’re a bigot, as nasty as the most stereotypical Klansman (Sen. Byrd, perhaps). I’m through with you.
Comment by Darleen on 5/22 @ 11:04 am #
Blacky
by your own admission, your life is meaningless. So why are you here arguing?
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 11:06 am #
2) Neither logic nor reason have anything to say about the existence or non-existence of the divine.
Do tell me then, does logic or reason have anything to say about the existence of the tooth fairy?
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 11:06 am #
Perhaps there’s no teaching you.
Whatever gave you that idea, tooth-fairy believer ?!?!?!?!
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 11:09 am #
by your own admission, your life is meaningless. So why are you here arguing?
I like to keep abreast of the current trends in god justification. Various arguments go in and out of fashion depending on what material the various major churches publish for their followers each year.
Comment by Carin on 5/22 @ 11:11 am #
Black brings out the sheeple argument. GENIUS!
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 11:15 am #
Senor Negro is a racist.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 11:18 am #
Black apparently isn’t aware that the Catholic Church (certainly a “major church” by anyone’s definition) has no problem with evolution, and that the Big Bang theory was developed by a Catholic priest.
The more he posts, the more gaps in his knowledge become apparent.
Comment by bh on 5/22 @ 11:18 am #
Yes, see Dicentra above.
I tried to help abstract the discussion past obvious semantic pitfalls but you resisted. Why? Because you like to use the tooth fairy as a taunt towards believers.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 11:20 am #
I was well aware of the catholic churches position. Darwin was a devoutly religious man too. How any of that impacts on whether or not god is real I’m not sure.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 11:22 am #
I was well aware of the catholic churches position.
Liar.
I thought you weren’t going to respond to me any more?
Oh, right: you lied about that, too. Multiple times.
Still waiting for you to demonstrate where I “lied” about my “education and experience”.
Comment by Darleen on 5/22 @ 11:23 am #
I like to keep abreast
But why? Your desires are but a chemical reaction. Your wants are but a chemical reaction. You are nothing but a sack of chemicals randomly occupying space.
Your desire is the equivalent of the toothfairy you cite, so WHY are you here? Be true to yourself and give up an trying to be meaningful in a life you declare meaningless, hypocrit.
Comment by Darleen on 5/22 @ 11:26 am #
SBP
IIRC there was a lot of fighting against Big Bang when it was first postulated because it was TOO “God like”
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 11:27 am #
Well, yeah… the Big Bang more or less implies some sort of causal agent or phenomenon.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 11:28 am #
Yes, see Dicentra above.
I tried to help abstract the discussion past obvious semantic pitfalls but you resisted. Why? Because you like to use the tooth fairy as a taunt towards believers.
I must have missed dicentras comments on it then or else didn’t think they had merit. But I don’t use the tooth fairy as a taunt, I use it as an equivilent being to god. They were both created by man to form a part in human mythology, neither has the slighted physical reality nor evidence they ever existed. I doubt any christian would object if I compared the tooth fairy to Ra the sun god as their religion tells them Ra cannot possibly be a god and therefor has no legitimacy other than as a cultural artifact. People get upset when it’s their ox that is gored, nothing more. There is nothing that seperates them other than dishonest attempts to privilage one over the other based purely on faith in one over the other. I could use any other mythical creature to fulfil the same role but the tooth fairy seems convenient for now.
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 11:28 am #
catholic churches
I do not mind typos, but an abuse of basic grammar rules drives me batty. There is one Catholic Church. Given your track record here, your claim to understand the Catholic Church’s position bears little relation to reality.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 11:29 am #
I thought you weren’t going to respond to me any more?
That is true, I wasn’t. But I thought as I’m here I may as well reply to the points that are at least open to an answer as you are making some now. I still won’t reply to any word games though.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 11:31 am #
I must have missed dicentras comments on it then or else didn’t think they had merit.
The more fool you. Dicentra is scary smart even for this place. I don’t always agree with her, but she has my deepest respect.
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 11:31 am #
Senor Negro fails to understand that its own religious non-belief has all of the trappings of the religious beliefs it decries.
And, it is a liar.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 11:32 am #
But I thought as I’m here I may as well reply to the points that are at least open to an answer as you are making some now.
So in other words you lied. Repeatedly.
I still won’t reply to any word games though.
You claimed that I “lied” about my “education and experience”. That’s not a “word game”.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 11:33 am #
Pull the other one, it’s got bells on it.
Comment by lee on 5/22 @ 11:33 am #
By what logic or reason can you regard the existence of life in all it’s beauty and variety and conclude “accident”.
That’s where the atheist argument always goes for me, where did life start? It is no more an act of faith to believe in the creation of God, than a cosmic accident. In fact, to me your claim that life was a spontaneous event arising from a spontaneous big bang is akin to believing an explosion at a printing house could possibly cause a leather bound, unabridged, dictionary to be created and settle down from above with the rest of the debris.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 11:34 am #
#475: That was an exceptionally mendoucheous claim, wasn’t it?
Comment by lee on 5/22 @ 11:36 am #
Does logic or reason tell you anything about the first cause of life?
No. Yet here we are.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 11:36 am #
I think JD you’re confusing my rejection of their ideas as an ignorance of them. I certainly don’t claim to be an expert on religion and I’m sure there are many smaller fringe religions I know nothing about at all. But I know enough about the big 3 to feel confident in my judgement that they at least as well as their derivatives are entirely false. As with the example of the tooth fairy, I don’t need to hear the whole story in minute detail to conclude the basic premise is false. The fine details are simply of academic interest rather than some fundamental support to the reality of god.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 11:37 am #
SBP — when Mr. Black refers to “word games” it means a line of argument that Mr. Black cannot handle.
I am curious, though — has he ‘fessed up that the “scientific community” is not on “his side”?
Comment by sdferr on 5/22 @ 11:39 am #
One possibility is to explore the whatness of “real”, Mr Black. You can set god to the side in that endeavor and spend your efforts on what you may consider nominally more fruitful matter. Perhaps something useful, something true even, might turn up, perhaps not. If carefully enough done though, something good almost always does.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 11:39 am #
The more fool you. Dicentra is scary smart even for this place. I don’t always agree with her, but she has my deepest respect.
Actually, while I reject her god and religion as I do god in general I do respect her position with regard to her faith. It makes no pretenses toward a god of gaps or any other faulty intellectual crutch that so many religious people feel the need to lean on. I like that kind of religion.
Comment by bh on 5/22 @ 11:40 am #
Or, you could more accurately refer to all things you don’t have evidence for as “unknown”. And then realize that you can draw no further distinctions because you can not even begin to guess as to their related characteristics.
You might not like the consequences of this (I don’t), but them’s the breaks. Doesn’t matter at all.
Refer back to comment #379. It is simply illogical to make statements about what you guess is Set B without doing the same thing to Set A.
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 11:43 am #
I am not confusing anything you have said, Senor Black. You have this little habit of claiming to understand something, and dismissing it out-of-hand. Then later, your words show a fundamental lack of understanding of the topic that you breezily dismissed previously. Later, rinse, repeat. Its pomposity and arrogance is really rather amusing. The “Big 3″ are all based on a false premise. Why would anyone bother with centuries of scholarship on these issues when they could have just called a racist lying twat like yourself, and found out that it was all just false.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 11:47 am #
To be fair, lee, that’s essentially argument from incredulity:
Come to think of it, that’s Mr. Black’s entire thesis, innit?
What do you call someone who claims to be “rational”, yet whose entire argument is a textbook fallacy?
(Another weirdly compelling paragraph on that page:
Damn, that sounds familiar.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 11:50 am #
For the same reason JD that scholars waste time investigating astrology, or voodoo or any other mythical belief. They believe in it regardless of what anyone else thinks. What is it they say about such things, you can’t reason a man out of a position he never reasoned himself into to begin with? Something like that. People believe all kinds of whacky shit that is entirely in their heads. They’re not looking for truth, they’re looking for self-validation. Oh, and fuck you. See how fun insults are? yay.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 11:53 am #
Or, you could more accurately refer to all things you don’t have evidence for as “unknownâ€.
Except that the tooth fairy is not “unknown”. It doesn’t exist. And thus far, I’ve not heard an argument here or anywhere else that manages to place god in a seperate catagory. As such, I’ll refer to both of them as imaginary creatures.
Comment by Darleen on 5/22 @ 11:55 am #
Mr. Black believes humans are nothing but chemical reactions, yet here he is arguing as if it means something.
now, who is the hypocrit?
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 5/22 @ 11:56 am #
They were both created by man to form a part in human mythology, neither has the slighted physical reality nor evidence they ever existed.
This is a wearisome argument. There’s all kinds of evidence. There is the testimony of all who have claimed to see God, to have witnessed his miracles, both in the Bible and without. Each of these claims may be investigated and questioned, but the rapidity with which they are discounted always strikes me as odd. Is not testimony evidence?
Indeed, the argument that the universe itself testifies to the existence of a supernatural mind behind it is very old.
If this argument can be accepted, the difference between pagan religions and monotheistic ones is one of rather obvious philosophical sophistication.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 12:00 pm #
Good point, Andrew.
Zillions of people claim to have spoken to God or felt his presence in some way.
A…shall we say…somewhat smaller number have made the same claim about the tooth fairy.
Comment by lee on 5/22 @ 12:00 pm #
I won’t dispute that, in fact that’s kinda my point. As I said, both my position and Black’s are faith based.
As someone that has spent a whole lotta time away from civilization, marveling at the wonders of nature, I find the atheist position to be more unbelievable than the theist.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 12:01 pm #
Right, lee.
The difference is that you admit it, and Black does not.
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 12:01 pm #
Oh, that stings, Senor Black.
How about this, back up your assertions that you made about SBP’s education and experience, and I will quit calling you a liar.
That, and quit advancing a dishonest argument.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 12:01 pm #
Is not testimony evidence?
We have some people here who claim an educational background in the sciences. Let’s ask them. What say you boys, is someone’s word or opinion on what they saw considered evidence in a scientific sense?
Comment by bh on 5/22 @ 12:02 pm #
This isn’t an argument, Black.
You’re saying that the tooth fairy isn’t real (of which, you have evidence) and it’s the same thing as God (of which, you have no evidence).
How do I even respond to that?
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 12:04 pm #
Andrew, he’s also back to the “physical reality” requirement, which excludes Ï€, i, and other obviously-real-but-completely-not-physical concepts.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 12:05 pm #
I’ve only ever met the tooth fairy’s franchisees.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 12:05 pm #
I don’t mind you calling me a liar JD. You’re some faceless dude behind a keyboard. Why the hell would I even care what you think about me? Call me anything you like. I’m still not replying to deliberately dishonest statements though.
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 12:06 pm #
I take that back, racist. You are not advancing a dishonest argument. You are presenting your argument in a dishonest manner. That is a distinction with a difference.
Senor Racist refuses to accept the fact that its dogmatic non-belief is no different than the belief systems it decries.
Comment by bh on 5/22 @ 12:06 pm #
By the way, when I speak of no evidence, I’m using it in a specific way with Black.
I can’t speak to what other people have 1) come across as evidence and 2) how they interpret it.
No evidence is axiomatic to Black. He needs to argue accordingly. Rob, among others, has been trying to point this out to him but with no luck.
Comment by Darleen on 5/22 @ 12:06 pm #
is someone’s word or opinion on what they saw considered evidence in a scientific sense?
:::cough::: Global Warming ::::cough::::
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 12:08 pm #
This isn’t an argument, Black.
You’re saying that the tooth fairy isn’t real (of which, you have evidence) and it’s the same thing as God (of which, you have no evidence).
How do I even respond to that?
You could begin by making clear, simple statements that seperate them into different catagories without resorting to double standards or fallacies of any kind.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 12:08 pm #
What say you boys, is someone’s word or opinion on what they saw considered evidence in a scientific sense?
Religion and science are different things, Black. That’s been pointed out to you repeatedly.
And yes, scientific evidence is fundamentally someone’s statement about what they saw. What their instruments read. What happened when they mixed those two chemicals. What else could it be?
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 12:08 pm #
I’m still not replying to deliberately dishonest statements though.
Ah, I get it. You will not respond to questions for proof of your questioning of SBP’s education and experience as you will not reply to deliberately dishonest statements, thus proving that you were being deliberately dishonest when you made those statements. Thanks for the admission.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 12:09 pm #
Certainly.
I am curious, though — what was Black’s response to having the fallacious nature of his “reasoning” pointed out?
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 12:10 pm #
Why is it that drive-by’s are inevitably such lousy spellers, and tend to use such creative grammar, all while claiming some superior intellect?
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 12:11 pm #
“Self-esteem”, JD.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 12:12 pm #
Oh, the wonders you see when you temporarily disable the ‘hammer:
What’s this about fallacies, then? Hmmm… quoting the same source as before:
Someone ’round here has been making that second argument. And now has the temerity to demand others avoid fallacies.
Weird.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 12:13 pm #
Heh.
(And it’s not just the spelling and grammar. There’s also the (using the term loosely) thought processes they demonstrate.)
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 12:14 pm #
And yes, scientific evidence is fundamentally someone’s statement about what they saw. What their instruments read. What happened when they mixed those two chemicals. What else could it be?
I’d really be interested in hearing Black’s response to this.
Something tells me, though, that he’s going to dismiss it as a “word game”.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 12:15 pm #
And yes, scientific evidence is fundamentally someone’s statement about what they saw. What their instruments read. What happened when they mixed those two chemicals. What else could it be?
Haha. I know you’re trapped with that between trying to back your own sides argument and in trying to be ethical about what scientific method requires but really… That’s fucking embarassing man. At least you could have saved your integrity by being honest about what actually constitutes proof in a scientific sense but then I must remember who I am dealing with. Once you’ve twisted one mean to suit your own ends it must come easy to twist another. But you and I at least know how freaking weak that was.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 12:17 pm #
At least you could have saved your integrity by being honest about what actually constitutes proof in a scientific sense but then I must remember who I am dealing with.
I notice that you did not answer the question.
As usual.
Comment by Pablo on 5/22 @ 12:17 pm #
Y’all get that Jello nailed to the tree yet?
Comment by lee on 5/22 @ 12:18 pm #
So come on Black, how did life begin? If you don’t have a scientific proof of that, then your belief in the matter is like believing the tooth fairy did it.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 12:18 pm #
Um, Black, about #511: evidence and proof are two distinct things.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 12:19 pm #
I mean, I’ve read hundreds (more likely in the low thousands, but I won’t claim that because I haven’t kept a log) of scientific and mathematical papers.
Every applied scientific paper I can think of boiled down to the researchers relating what they observed when they performed their experiment. Mathematical and theory papers are different, of course.
Comment by bh on 5/22 @ 12:20 pm #
Dicentra already did. And, come to think of it, she might be scary smarter than we thought because she seems to have accurately figured out where you were going to keep making category errors.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 12:22 pm #
And, seriously, there’s very little proving in science. Experiments never “prove” a theory; they merely fail to disprove it.
IMHO, that’s one of the weaknesses of how science if taught. It’s an admittedly difficult concept to fully grasp, but we’d be a hell of a lot better off if everyone could be taught to understand the distinction.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 12:22 pm #
I notice that you did not answer the question.
There was no question. You were deliberately misrepresenting what constitutes scientific proof to try and give support to one of your fellow travellers when the ethical response would have been to set him straight on the difference between proof and anecdote. Either you don’t have any understanding of scientific method at all and are just pretending to it or you deliberately misrepresented it. Either way, it is contemptuous.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 12:23 pm #
Aren’t they supposed to start with a theory (prediction) as to what they would observe? And aren’t the really interesting ones the ones where their predictions are wrong?
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 12:25 pm #
There was no question.
Yes, there was.
How are experimental observations recorded in a research article different from “someone’s word or opinion on what they saw”?
Answer it, please.
what constitutes scientific proof
No such thing. Math has proofs, not science. Another gap in your knowledge identified.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 12:25 pm #
“Proof”?
Where in science is there “proof”?
BTW — anecdote is a class of evidence. It has to be compared to the other evidence, but it’s still evidence.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 12:25 pm #
Dicentra already did. And, come to think of it, she might be scary smarter than we thought because she seems to have accurately figured out where you were going to keep making category errors.
Well as I said, I either missed them or dismissed them as faulty but I don’t remember what they were.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 12:27 pm #
Aren’t they supposed to start with a theory (prediction) as to what they would observe?
Well, maybe. A classic hypothesis test works that way, certainly.
And aren’t the really interesting ones the ones where their predictions are wrong?
Definitely. I forget who it was who claimed that the true sound of scientific discovery wasn’t “Eureka!” but “Huh. That’s funny….”.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 12:28 pm #
Honestly, both Rob and SBP, shut the fuck up on the grammar nazi shit. I already spelled out in detail at the beginning of this thread the difference between these concepts and that science never proves anything. If you want to “win” points by noting I’m not always using the correct scientific terms because I don’t care that much to bother then go ahead. Another mighty victory for the forces of god.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 12:28 pm #
*snirk*
Comment by sdferr on 5/22 @ 12:30 pm #
Have you ever read W.V.O. Quine’s “Word and Object“, Mr Black? Or Wilfred Sellars’ “Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind“? If not, may I commend them to you? You may, stress may, then wish to reconsider your criticism of SBP’s observation as “freaking weak”.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 12:30 pm #
Please respond to the first part of my #521, Black.
Thanks.
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 12:32 pm #
So, racist liar, you essentially have no response to that?
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 5/22 @ 12:33 pm #
He has eyes but does not see. He proves.
Comment by lee on 5/22 @ 12:34 pm #
And yet your whole argument is that because God cannot be proved, belief in Him is a fantasy akin to believing in the tooth fairy, unlike an atheist, which you claim is the only rational belief, even though you cannot disprove the existence of God.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 12:35 pm #
Aren’t they supposed to start with a theory (prediction) as to what they would observe?
Well at least rob tended toward an honest description of scientific method even if it is incomplete. I see that SBP continues to fudge it and not come clean. Damn, you sure are a piece of work. If you’re going to claim a background in science you’d better have a pretty firm understanding of things like method. I’ve worked around other engineers and scientists my whole career, every single one of them would be embarassed to keep your company with that evasive and dishonest attempt to try and pass off anecdote as scientific evidence. I’m sure you know damn well how deceptive you were being. That only makes it worse as a mark of your character. But at least it confirms my earlier impression that you deliberately misrepresent terms and meanings to fudge an argument.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 12:36 pm #
I see that SBP continues to fudge it and not come clean. Damn, you sure are a piece of work
That doesn’t look much like an answer to:
How are experimental observations recorded in a research article different from “someone’s word or opinion on what they saw�
Are you going to answer the question or not?
At least you seem to stopped denying that there was, in fact, a question. At least for now.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 12:39 pm #
I’m sorry if people feel I’m missing their killer point or ignoring their argument. There are half a dozen or more of you posting for just me to reply to. I’m only picking the best and worst of the points that interest me. If your point is outright stupid, dishonest or repetative I probably won’t be replying.
Comment by lee on 5/22 @ 12:40 pm #
For the record, I don’t have a background in science(shocker, I know), but I can recognize a circular argument when I see one.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 12:40 pm #
Translation: you’re not going to answer this question, either.
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 5/22 @ 12:40 pm #
One’s talking about philosophy and another is waving lab notes about, pretending that his mind is not involved. Hilarious.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 12:42 pm #
By the way, Black, it’s utterly clear that you’re not “ignoring” the question. You’ve responded to it several times.
Unfortunately each response consisted of nothing but ad hominem attacks.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 12:42 pm #
Comment #115, this thread:
I should have added “arrogance” to that, too.
The problem, Black, is that the distinction is not immaterial. You took an explanation of evidence and then began talking about proof.
See, we’re using these thingummies called “words” to attempt to communicate, er “share ideas”. If the meanings of the words shift willy-nilly, then there’s no possibility to communicate. When you’re discussing philosophy, as we are, then you’re really trying to hash out the meanings of the words.
So, when you switched from “evidence” to “proof”, you may have thought you were just being slightly sloppy, but to us it appeared to be an attempt to shift the goalposts.
Comment by sdferr on 5/22 @ 12:43 pm #
You are back to deploying a trope that may prove to be unfit to those with whom you are contending, Mr Black.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 12:43 pm #
SBP, this is an example of your dishonest tactics that I won’t be responding too. If you actually have some kind of scientific education then you know damn well what proper method is and you’re lying about it. If you don’t have a scientific background it would explain why you can’t manage to get the concepts right but in that case you’re lying about your education. Either way you’re being deliberately deceptive and it doesn’t merit a reply. I hope that spells things out clearly. Go and look on wiki for scientific method if you’re having trouble remembering what it is.
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 5/22 @ 12:46 pm #
And therein lies the crux of the matter.
The scientist will not admit that his lab notes are not writ by the Universe’s own hand, by the magic Method.
All hail the Method! The Method, which alone gives evidence! The Method, which alone defines phenomena! Hear, oh Humanity, the Method is One!
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 12:47 pm #
Well as I said, I either missed them or dismissed them as faulty
It will just keep repeating this, rather than actually address what dicentra said. It is easier that way.
Let me get this straight, the racist liar is a devoted follower of the Church of the Science as Religion, but routinely mangles basic concepts in re. science, and when called on same, complains about word games?
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 12:49 pm #
So, when you switched from “evidence†to “proofâ€, you may have thought you were just being slightly sloppy, but to us it appeared to be an attempt to shift the goalposts.
Well lucky for me then that I’d previously already spelled out in clear language that I understand the difference perfectly well.
Comment by happyfeet on 5/22 @ 12:49 pm #
I stoled this from a friend on messenger who probably stoled it from somewhere else.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 12:49 pm #
SBP, this is an example of your dishonest tactics that I won’t be responding too.
Translation: you’re still not going to answer the question.
If you actually have some kind of scientific education then you know damn well what proper method is and you’re lying about it.
Well, my own data sets are created by me writing down what I see (and/or what my instruments report).
How are yours different?
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 12:50 pm #
What distinguishes between “anecdote” and “scientific evidence”?
Comment by happyfeet on 5/22 @ 12:51 pm #
zomg, maybe
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 5/22 @ 12:51 pm #
This may be your point, Rob, but wasn’t he just arguing by anecdote.
And he wrote it down.
Somebody stop him; he’s one of those religious nuts.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 12:52 pm #
Translation: you’re still not going to answer the question.
Correct. When you verge into the deliberately dishonest, you don’t merit a response. I’m glad you see how it works.
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 12:54 pm #
I am not confusing anything you have said, Senor Black. You have this little habit of claiming to understand something, and dismissing it out-of-hand. Then later, your words show a fundamental lack of understanding of the topic that you breezily dismissed previously. Later, rinse, repeat. Its pomposity and arrogance is really rather amusing.
The list of topics that this prior comment is applicable to just keeps growing.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 12:54 pm #
Lest anyone get the wrong idea from Black’s repeated lies: I think science and technology are freakin’ awesome. Also, they pay my bills.
However, I don’t claim that Holy Mother Science is the answer to all human questions. I know that it isn’t.
Let me note again an earlier question which Black ignored repeatedly: if we’re not supposed to take anything which isn’t “scientifically provable” (in the Black sense) as a basis for law and/or public policy, doesn’t that mean that we’re not allowed to take justice into account?
Justice isn’t scientific in any sense of the word.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 12:55 pm #
Then why’d you slide from one to the other?
There are a hell of a lot of solidly scientific theories based on anecdote, BTW. Just about any attempt to explain the Tunguska Event, for example, starts quoting the experiences of the natives.
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 5/22 @ 12:55 pm #
When you verge into the deliberately dishonest, you don’t merit a response. I’m glad you see how it works.
He that verges into the dishonest, let him be anathema.
He that defineth contrary to the one true Method, let him be anathema.
-Book of Teh Science 3:14-15
Comment by lee on 5/22 @ 12:55 pm #
Black, please answer this question. In the absence of God, how did life begin, and what scientific evidence do you have to base your theory on?
Comment by happyfeet on 5/22 @ 12:56 pm #
God has abandoned California is my sense.
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 12:56 pm #
If we are not supposed to take anything that is not scientifically provable into account, I would be interesting in Senor Racist Liar proving that God does not exist.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 12:57 pm #
There’s only one person who is being “deliberately dishonest” in this thread, and it’s they guy citing “reason” while making a fallacious argument.
(That would be you, Black.)
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 12:57 pm #
When you verge into the deliberately dishonest
It’s deliberately dishonest to ask you for an explanation of the difference between “scientific evidence” and “someone’s word or opinion on what they saw”?
How so?
Someone with such a King Hell Awesome grasp of Teh Holy Scientific Method as yourself should be able to answer a simple question such as that, one would think.
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 12:57 pm #
I would also be interested in it proving the existence of love, justice, or even social and economic justice.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 12:57 pm #
What distinguishes between “anecdote†and “scientific evidence�
Are you asking because you think I don’t know or are you asking because you don’t know?
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 12:58 pm #
The list of topics that this prior comment is applicable to just keeps growing exponentially
Fixed it for you, JD. :-)
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 5/22 @ 12:59 pm #
He’s asking because it’s germaine to the point, sparky.
Now be a good boy and answer him.
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 1:00 pm #
Now, who is playing word games, Mr Racist?
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 1:02 pm #
It always amazes me how the drive-by’s get tripped up over such simple and basic ideas.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 1:02 pm #
Black, please answer this question. In the absence of God, how did life begin, and what scientific evidence do you have to base your theory on?
I don’t know or care nor do I make any claims about it. Next.
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 1:05 pm #
Yet you claim God does not exist … Odd, that.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 1:06 pm #
He’s asking because it’s germaine to the point, sparky.
Now be a good boy and answer him.
This isn’t a quiz show. I don’t need to explain a well known concept to prove I understand it and if I didn’t I could just paste in the explnation from wiki and pretend. So that proves nothing. And if he doesn’t know he can go and look it up. Thus I wonder what the point to the question is.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 1:07 pm #
This isn’t a quiz show.
It’s a debate.
One that you’re losing.
Badly.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 1:08 pm #
JD, git in da house and fix masa a fried chiken.
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 5/22 @ 1:11 pm #
I don’t need to explain a well known concept to prove I understand it and if I didn’t I could just paste in the explnation from wiki and pretend.
Anyone else in favor of accepting this as a stealth admission of ignorance?
Comment by lee on 5/22 @ 1:11 pm #
Wow. Not very curious for such an amazing intellect.
Come on. Consider me an ignorant hick, clinging to my Bible, but with an open mind. My one stumbling block is the(pretty fundamental, in my mind) question of the beginning of life. If you can give me any working theory that is better than my “no better than the tooth fairy” belief, perhaps you can sway me to your way of thinking.
I will take your hundred or so comments on this thread as evidence that you do care about that…
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 1:11 pm #
Because:
1) I think you have a misunderstanding of the definitions
2) I want to know what you think the definitions are
I’m not necessarily attempting to prove anything. I’m trying to clarify the argument you’re making.
(As far as I’m concerned, “scientific evidence” is a subset of “anecdote”, yet you’re reacting as if the two are disjoint.)
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 1:12 pm #
oh NO! Told I’m losing again by the internet umpire. I’ll really have to lift my game then. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn you work for the discovery institute though SBP as a means of collecting a paycheck through “science”. Your kind of pseudo-scientific justifications for the supernatural sound just like their brand of dishonesty.
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 5/22 @ 1:15 pm #
I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn you work for the discovery institute though SBP as a means of collecting a paycheck through “scienceâ€. Your kind of pseudo-scientific justifications for the supernatural sound just like their brand of dishonesty.
He’s a WITCH!!! BURN ‘IM!!!
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 5/22 @ 1:15 pm #
Crap. Messed up a tag.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 1:15 pm #
Come on. Consider me an ignorant hick, clinging to my Bible, but with an open mind. My one stumbling block is the(pretty fundamental, in my mind) question of the beginning of life. If you can give me any working theory that is better than my “no better than the tooth fairy†belief, perhaps you can sway me to your way of thinking.
I don’t give a crap what you think and I’m not interested in swaying your thinking.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 1:16 pm #
Don’t let him change the subject, Andrew. I want him to answer my question:
What distinguishes between “anecdote†and “scientific evidence�
In your own words, please. No need to answer in the form of a question.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 1:17 pm #
Then why are you here?
BTW — In your own words, what distinguishes between “anecdote” and “scientific evidence”?
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 1:19 pm #
1) I think you have a misunderstanding of the definitions
2) I want to know what you think the definitions are
I’m sure the wiki page on scientific method will suffice. I won’t trouble with re-posting it here. I haven’t read it but I’ll trust it’s accurate and stand by whatever it says is proper method (assuming it’s not been tampered with).
Comment by sdferr on 5/22 @ 1:20 pm #
Sheesh.
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 1:21 pm #
WEDGE STRATEGY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ZOMG ! Senor Racist is Nishit, on Lithium.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 1:21 pm #
Then why are you here?
I already stated this, I like to keep abreast of the god justification arguments that are in fashion in religious circles. I’m not the least interested in convincing people, I don’t care what they believe.
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 5/22 @ 1:21 pm #
I haven’t read it but I’ll trust it’s accurate and stand by whatever it says is proper method (assuming it’s not been tampered with).
Go thy ways, thy faith has saved thee.
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 1:22 pm #
I like to keep abreast of the god justification arguments that are in fashion in religious circles
As has been pointed out to you more times that we can even keep track of any longer, you really are teh suxXor at paying attention to your audience.
Comment by bh on 5/22 @ 1:23 pm #
SBP, it surprises me little to learn your general area of work.
sdferr, would you recommend Sellars’ Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind? I just googled it and it looks very interesting.
lee, if you don’t mean that rhetorically, check out molecular biology, it’s pretty fascinating stuff. Or google, “evolution of DNA/RNA”. Local, replicating order as an emergent property of matter? I couldn’t tell you but it’s fun to read and think about it.
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 1:24 pm #
So, Senor Racist is willing to accept Wiki as a matter of Faith, but rejects the idea of God, as a matter of Faith.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 1:24 pm #
In other words, you refuse to answer an inquiry in good faith, which has been explained as an attempt to understand the argument you’re making.
All, right, then. No point in flogging the deceased equine.
Comment by sdferr on 5/22 @ 1:25 pm #
That’s the thing though, isn’t it? It is not that you should as you put it “care what they believe” but that you should care what you believe. Yet when afforded the opportunity to explore what you believe along with Rob, who is only here to help you and himself, you turn away from your own beliefs and point instead to the wiki. That’s just, what, Meno-like man, and in that dialog, if you recall, between the slaveboy and Meno, it isn’t the slaveboy that comes off a slave.
Comment by sdferr on 5/22 @ 1:27 pm #
bh, to be sure I do recommend it. It’s a kicker.
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 1:27 pm #
From this point forward, given Senor Negro’s fervent and fevered belief in its non-belief, I will now refer to its non-belief as Belief in the Ginormous All-powerful Flying Chocolate Starfish In The Sky.
Comment by lee on 5/22 @ 1:27 pm #
Yet you are uninterested in talking to me, the only one not approaching you from a scientific angle, but from a religious one.
I think you are intellectually dishonest.
Comment by lee on 5/22 @ 1:28 pm #
I’m off to mow the lawn, good luck on getting anywhere with the liar gentleman and ladies.
Comment by happyfeet on 5/22 @ 1:30 pm #
NPR has made a lot of this bigotry against the Christian people very fashionable. Them and Jon Stewart. At least here in Los Angeles you can talk all kinds of shit about Christians just about anywhere you go.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 1:30 pm #
It’s the refusal to state his own understanding of the differences that pushes him into the “dishonest douche bag” category. I just don’t get that.
(My understanding of the difference: scientific evidence is an anecdote with enough context to allow it to be repeated. Not a completely satisfactory definition — archaeology, paleontology, and astronomy are scientific, but have a difficult time with the repeatability, but a reasonable one, I think.)
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 1:33 pm #
Sorry lee but your questions just lack sophistication. Anyone still stuck on “prove how life began, huh!! huh!!” is still stuck in the proverbial junior high of understanding when it comes to the natural world and science.
Comment by lee on 5/22 @ 1:34 pm #
Well, to be honest it was kinda rhetorical, but I will check that out bh, thanks.
Unlike some mental giants, I am intellectually curious about the fundamentals of my belief system.
Comment by bh on 5/22 @ 1:37 pm #
Thanks, sdferr.
Black, rhetorically, it isn’t terribly effective to refer to SBP or Rob as dumb or dishonest if others here have read hundreds of previous comments showing them the opposite.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 1:38 pm #
Then how did life begin, Mr. Junior High Graduate?
In your own words, please.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 1:39 pm #
It’s the refusal to state his own understanding of the differences that pushes him into the “dishonest douche bag†category. I just don’t get that.
What’s the difference between sending you to wiki and cribbing parts of it to post as my own thoughts given I’m sure wiki has an accurate description? It’s not like scientific method is open to wide interpretation.
Comment by lee on 5/22 @ 1:39 pm #
Isn’t that a given in your mind when it comes to “keep[ing] abreast of the god justification arguments that are in fashion in religious circles”?
Sorry, that was another rhetorical question…but with a point.
Comment by bh on 5/22 @ 1:43 pm #
Okay, gotta run. To quote Fatboy Slim, “The weekend starts here.”
Have a great Memorial weekend everyone.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 1:46 pm #
Black, rhetorically, it isn’t terribly effective to refer to SBP or Rob as dumb or dishonest if others here have read hundreds of previous comments showing them the opposite.
Ya, well when I care about the opinions of faceless internet peeps you’ll be the first to know.
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 5/22 @ 1:47 pm #
It’s not like scientific method is open to wide interpretation.
What a Magisterial argument.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 1:50 pm #
A common saying — repeated with strong conviction by some of the best teachers I ever had — is that you never really understand something until you teach someone else.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 1:51 pm #
So you’re either a solipsist a proof of this theory.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 1:52 pm #
“either a solipsist OR…”
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 1:53 pm #
A common saying — repeated with strong conviction by some of the best teachers I ever had — is that you never really understand something until you teach someone else.
I’d tend to agree with that but I’m not here to be your teacher. Take my word for it or don’t, I know what proper method is. If you personally want a lengthy explanation, wiki will have to do. Suffice to say I’m pretty sure “anecdote” will not appear in any such description of evidence or method. But we both knew that already.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 1:58 pm #
Nor, apparently, to learn.
And why should I take your word for anything? You’re just a faceless internet peep who has done an incredibly shitty job establishing his bonafides. I mean, your essential argument — the one you declare is “rational” — is a logical fallacy. Based on that, I have every reason to believe you’re as ignorant of scientific method as you are of humility.
Comment by sdferr on 5/22 @ 1:58 pm #
I was initially a little surprised that Soc. would waste his time on a slavish man like Meno, until I thought it through a while. Crashing boors can be fun, it turns out!
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 5/22 @ 1:59 pm #
There’s an adage in poker:
The guy who doesn’t want to lay his cards down is right not to.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 2:00 pm #
Belive me Rob, if I wanted to go down the fuckwad road I would. But what would that achieve, JD already has that role covered with behavior I’d expect from a 14yo and which in Texas would get him shot in the face.
Some folks find the idea of treating god to ridicule offensive because it messes with their own fantasies about him. But that’s not being a fuckwad, I just don’t care to indulge your sensitivities on a subject I think is no more real than santa and unicorns. If any god in existence has a problem with that, they’ll let me know I’m sure.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 2:02 pm #
Nor, apparently, to learn.
Sure I am, I just may not be here for the lesson you want to try and teach.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 2:04 pm #
Would you be aware if you had?
Likely not.
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 2:05 pm #
Ya, well when I care about the opinions of faceless internet peeps you’ll be the first to know.
It does not care, and has about a hundred comments in this thread alone to prove it.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 2:05 pm #
The best lessons are often those we did not expect, but to learn them we must have an open mind.
So sad that you refuse to learn anything but what reinforces your own bigotries. So sad that you refuse to act in good faith in something as ephemeral (and low cost) as an Internet discussion.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 2:06 pm #
Jeez, some of you folks are so trivial. By actually just saying upfront that wiki will cover my opinion adequately you think that I’ve slipped up like an idiot and let it out I don’t know what I’m talking about? Does it not occur to any of you that if I was trying to maintain a facade that I’d conceal that kind of shit incase it discredited me? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar lads. Leave it be.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 2:06 pm #
Just stay out of Texas, OK JD?
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 2:08 pm #
Senor Racist is blissfully unaware of its audience, has the complete and demonstrated inability to recognize the most basic of flaws in its own “rational” positions, and is basically just a dishonest interlocutor.
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 2:09 pm #
I was in Texas weekly for the last month, and miracle of miracles, nothing happened to me.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 2:10 pm #
…
1) I think you have a misunderstanding of the definitions
2) I want to know what you think the definitions are
…
In other words, you refuse to answer an inquiry in good faith, which has been explained as an attempt to understand the argument you’re making.
…
I really should have stuck to my guns on this comment, though:
All, right, then. No point in flogging the deceased equine.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 2:10 pm #
oh NO! Told I’m losing again by the internet umpire.
Oh, NO! “Refuted” by irrelevant ad homs again!
I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn you work for the discovery institute
I work for a Tier One research university, knob, and I get paid for doing….wait for it…scientific research.
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 2:11 pm #
Wiki is an article of blind faith, just like God.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 2:11 pm #
And Black has never addressed the fact that his own argument is a fallacy, has he?
Weird. It must keep falling onto the blind spots in both eyes.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 2:12 pm #
Maybe so JD but I’ll bet you kept your fuckwad personality zipped up tight and didn’t go mouthing off in a room full of strangers with guns.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 2:12 pm #
Still waiting for an answer to this question, knob:
What is the difference between “scientific evidence†and “someone’s word or opinion on what they saw�
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 2:13 pm #
Ah, but Mr. Black spent last night in a Holiday Inn Express.
Comment by Black on 5/22 @ 2:14 pm #
Eh, it’s getting old now. It’s clearly not going to head back in the direction of justifications for god and as that’s really all I’m interested in hearing I’ll call it a day. Well played boys.
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 2:16 pm #
And he declares victory and runs away yet again.
Snicker.
Comment by happyfeet on 5/22 @ 2:16 pm #
Texans are the nicest people. They’re not quick to anger at all really. Unlessin maybe there’s been a lot of drinkin but that’s same as anywhere.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 2:18 pm #
And he never addressed his own fallacious reasoning.
Damn.
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 2:20 pm #
It certainly is a tough-guy, that does not care about words on the internet. Oooooo. A room full of guns, how scary. I do not need to go to Texas to find that, Senor Negro. Why do you harbor such cartoonish images of Texans?
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 5/22 @ 2:22 pm #
Well, duh. His faith covers for him. The Method will cover for any flaws in his own reasoning. He is but an humble worker, it is the Method that is Science.
“Ye mayst not speak the name of the Method allowed! Thou shalt learn thy Wiki or be flung into Texas.”
-Book of Teh Science, 11:1!
Comment by SBP on 5/22 @ 2:23 pm #
I’ve never had a serious problem with a Texan that I can think of, certainly.
Although it did get a little annoying when I shared an office with an A&M graduate and a UT graduate in grad school.
Heh.
Comment by BJT-FREE! on 5/22 @ 2:23 pm #
YOU WILL JUSTIFY YOUR GOD TO ME OR I WILL TAKE MY TOYS AND LEAVE!!!
Science is god, Mr. Black. Also Elmo, Charo and The Space Needle.
Relativism: The other white meat!
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 2:27 pm #
Many years ago (though on the same project I’m on now; damn, I need something new to work on) we had an IBM contractor from Texas. He was, simply put, a moron. Not all too clear on the language we were using, not all that clear on what we were building, went through a laptop a month because of poor handling.
He claimed there was a warrant out for him back in Texas because he and some friends got jumped and the guys what attacked him lied to the police.
He also — apparently with some pride — told the story of how he’d taken the tip of a friend’s finger off with a circular saw.
I’ve never assumed he was a typical Texan, just that he was on assignment so far from home because the folks back home couldn’t stand him, either.
Comment by JD on 5/22 @ 2:27 pm #
Senor Black must considered itself to be one of those tough-guy Texans, and for some reason thinks a room full of guns would do anything other than make for a fun afternoon. Plus, it is a racist lying poofter what probably thinks Teh One is the shiz-nit.
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 5/22 @ 2:31 pm #
JD, don’t give him Troll Flakes.
Comment by lee on 5/22 @ 2:31 pm #
I gave you a justification, and invited you to refute me.
Strange, you weren’t interested, even though you claim that is your reason for being here.
So, I belied your stated reason for being here, you denied you were here to teach or learn, and you got your ass handed you every way from Sunday.
All in all, I’d say you just wasted a lot of time for yourself, which means you are just an average troll.
You must be so proud.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 5/22 @ 2:31 pm #
I dunno about the racist part. I think he’s just a bigot on other matters.
Comment by Ric Locke on 5/22 @ 2:39 pm #
635 posts of twaddle.
Now making it 636.
Regards,
Ric
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 5/22 @ 2:40 pm #
You hurt my feelings with that remark.
Did I mention that I cried?
Comment by lee on 5/22 @ 2:44 pm #
Ric, what 5 weren’t twaddle?
Comment by bh on 5/22 @ 6:13 pm #
Wow, traffic is terrible out there. And I’m the only person in Wisconsin without a boat apparently.
Ric, by twaddle do you mean that this discussion is silly, always the same and goes on forever? If so, no need to elaborate.
But, hey, I learn a great deal from your comments. I really do. Do you see a common mistake being made or an obvious point being overlooked?
You don’t owe me your thoughts or time, so no biggie if you don’t feel like responding. If you do feel like it though, I’ll just read it and won’t badger you with further questions.
Comment by Sammy on 5/22 @ 11:55 pm #
Actually, I’m stuck on the idea of, “If there’s no evidence in support, then it shouldn’t be the basis for policy.”
Sure you can, I’m sure there’s lots of evidence that your mom loves you. I’m sure there are many times she put your interests before her own. I’m sure there’s many times she took action and expense to prevent harm from befalling you. It’s not like love, joy, music, patriotism, sexual preference, the reason we invent Gods (even if you believe your God s real, you have to admit thousands of others have been invented), are things that can’t be studied and are outside the realm of scientific inquiry. Far from it.
Well, in 2009, we quite simply don’t know. Are you suggesting that we stop looking?
We have a pretty good idea what happened after the first living thing came to be, and we have some ideas about self-replicating molecules, but it’s certainly one of the big unanswered questions of our time. There was a time when we didn’t know about germs making people sick. We couldn’t figure out why Mercury was in the wrong place. By definition, you have to have a question, and then spend some amount of time looking for answers. What does this have to do with God? Is God simply a moniker for “unanswered question”? If so, then God will likely always exist, as (my guess is) we’ll always have a certain number of unanswered questions. As many of you have pointed out, something can be true and not provable.
Let me say it another way, if “how did life start?” is one of those things that, according to Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, is answered by a true proposition which cannot be proved, does that mean that the true proposition is automatically God?
It seems a little useless to say, in general, “We don’t know, therefor God did it.” Before germ theory, people believed you got sick because God was punishing you for some sin. Some of the biggest decisions were made by rolling dice, or picking colored stones out of a bag. I’m guessing we’re better off because we’ve kept looking for answers instead of just assuming that God will make the dice answer questions.
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 5/23 @ 10:36 am #
Let me say it another way, if “how did life start?†is one of those things that, according to Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, is answered by a true proposition which cannot be proved, does that mean that the true proposition is automatically God?
Not necessarily, of course. But it does make God a less implausible answer than otherwise, doesn’t it?
Comment by Sammy on 5/23 @ 6:11 pm #
If God of the Gaps is good enough for you, sure. Does that mean that God was more plausible before we learned that germs spread disease, and God became less plausible after that discovery? God was more plausible before the theory of evolution and less plausible afterwords? It seems one could take the notion of a God that becomes less plausible decade after decade, and follow that to its logical conclusion.