This isn't a parody thread. LeonIsPro has been gracious to explain (sorta ) his worldview in the Christian thread I figured I'd give the theists a chance to be the questioners.

7/5/2011 4:43:57 PM

Why do you hate America?

7/5/2011 7:17:44 PM

Why don't you believe in anything?

7/5/2011 7:18:34 PM

Do you cry yourself to sleep at night from the loneliness?

7/5/2011 7:21:49 PM

What's your favorite way to cook babies?

7/5/2011 7:26:34 PM

What happens when you are dead because God made black.

7/5/2011 7:51:12 PM

We go no meat land.

7/5/2011 8:02:39 PM

Why we go no meat land?

7/5/2011 8:08:45 PM

hehehe, I'm going to answer these legitimately.

Quote :

"Why do you hate America?"

I don't.

Quote :

"Why don't you believe in anything?"

I believe in claims which have significant evidence supporting them. I believe in lots of things.

Quote :

"Do you cry yourself to sleep at night from the loneliness?"

Nope. I'm not lonely at all.

Quote :

"What's your favorite way to cook babies?"

California Cheeseburger, baby.

Quote :

"What happens when you are dead because God made black."

I don't know what 'God made black' means.

Quote :

"Why we go no meat land?"

There almost assuredly is no such thing as meat land. Luckily there's plenty of meat to be had here, in reality. So keep in mind you only get one short time of existence and enjoy the meat to be had, while respecting other people who also only have a short time of existence and their right to enjoy meat.

7/5/2011 8:46:41 PM

Do you believe in the Omega Point Theory and/or the technological singularity? If so, does this reflect the fact that the foundations of religion or science are based on correct intuition?

7/5/2011 9:54:20 PM

Fuck the singularity theory.

7/5/2011 10:01:20 PM

^ Perhaps you would prefer the doomsday argument?

7/5/2011 10:29:50 PM

Was Jesus the only child of Mary?

7/5/2011 11:19:49 PM

^ being a purely factual question I find that a bit odd, but as I understand it the answer is quite simply "no"

7/5/2011 11:25:51 PM

Who would want to be Jerry, the brother of Christ. That's a tough gig.

7/5/2011 11:50:56 PM

Quote :

"Questions about Skepticism Agnosticism or Atheism?"

7/6/2011 12:34:27 AM

Quote :

"Do you believe in the Omega Point Theory and/or the technological singularity? If so, does this reflect the fact that the foundations of religion or science are based on correct intuition?"

I believe it's a theory and I believe that it is possible some time in the distant future. I see future technology as being as powerful and alien to us as a cell phone would be to Middle Age people so who the hell knows what's possible in the future?

No, the foundations of religion and science are fundamentally different. You have faith, or you have evidence.

Quote :

"^ Perhaps you would prefer the doomsday argument?"

Likely. I wouldn't be surprised if the human race didn't outlast the Earth. I don't expect any major catastrophe to occur during our lifetime however, as that's a self-centered fantasy with no basis in reality.

Quote :

"Was Jesus the only child of Mary?"

I'm not entirely convinced Jesus even existed as described in the Gospels. The Bible does reference Jesus' brothers quite a lot, but you know how much I trust the veracity of the Bible.

Quote :

""Questions about Skepticism Agnosticism or Atheism?""

Gnosticism refers to What You Can Know.
Theism refers to What You Do Believe.

No one is just an "Agnostic" or an "Atheist." Everyone is a combination of the two terms. In regards to the possibility of a god I am an Agnostic Atheist. In regards to the existence of particular gods in human history like Yahweh or Osiris, I am a Gnostic Atheist. LeonIsPro is a Gnostic Theist. People who believe in shit like the Unmoved Mover but not Yahweh are Agnostic Theists.

Well, not everyone is a combination of the two. Infants, for instance are just atheists as they don't have the understanding to know whether you can or cannot know. They just don't believe.

7/6/2011 1:03:50 AM

Quote :

"Gnosticism refers to What You Can Know. Theism refers to What You Do Believe."

I can realize that I'll never be all knowing or be able to truly know the answers to some questions, but that doesn't mean I have to believe one way or the other

I don't believe there's definitely a god or definitely not a god, because I realize I can't ever actually know

So I don't understand how you can say nobody is just an atheist or just an agnostic, especially just an agnostic...atheists come to a conclusion in order to believe theres no god, agnostics are just like fuck, how should i know

7/6/2011 1:19:43 AM

I think that you either do believe a claim or you don't. There is no opt out. Opting out = "not believing, pending further evidence." Or it could mean "Tentatively believing, pending further evidence".

Quote :

"but that doesn't mean I have to believe one way or the other"

That's what atheism means. Not believing. You're misinterpreting the lack of belief as belief in a negative. Atheism is the default position.

[Edited on July 6, 2011 at 1:38 AM. Reason : .]

7/6/2011 1:35:57 AM

Why is atheism the default position for someone who has both been exposed to people preaching God and other people saying theres no God? I don't think there is as much of a venn diagram overlap between atheism and agnosticism as you're defining

And as far as opting out, you might not consider there are people who take option C, "not pretending/caring/needing to believe, pending further evidence"

Basically, your definitions seems to imply that people need to either believe or not believe even if hesitant and tentative...I'm telling you that there are people who are neither...and while its anecdotal (me), I doubt I'm the only person who feels this way

7/6/2011 1:42:56 AM

Quote :

"I believe it's a theory and I believe that it is possible some time in the distant future."

But there is a big difference between 2 things:
1) The Omega Point as something that may be in the future
2) The Omega Point as being something that is both inevitable and required for our own existence

This is subject to some argument, but my reading is that Tipler makes what is basically the strong anthropic for both past and future states of the universe. Any strong anthropic principle at all would be at minimum pseudo-theistic IMO, although I would like to hear what your thoughts on this are. Even though I say this, I also believe that the anthropic principle has such strong evidence it's almost incontrovertible and the strong form is also highly appealing from a rational standpoint. I'm also not alone in saying that pathways from reason to a sort of proto-theism exist.

By the way, for those of you thinking of using the Doomsday Argument on the singularity arguments, just know that Tipler also makes what I call the "matrix" argument, which is that many more simulated versions of yourself will likely exist in the later universe and by Bayesian statistics, you are most likely to be in a Matrix-like simulation. Thus infinite growth is consistent with the low probability of us being here. And yeah... this patently introduces a God, although in this case it at least demonstrably fails to answer existentialist questions.

[Edited on July 6, 2011 at 1:51 AM. Reason : ]

7/6/2011 1:49:45 AM

Quote :

"Why is atheism the default position for someone who has both been exposed to people preaching God and other people saying theres no God? I don't think there is as much of a venn diagram overlap between atheism and agnosticism as you're defining"

Because you either believe the God claim or you don't. I'm not asking you to accept "There is no God." There is only one claim here: "There is God." Atheism is any position that includes "I don't believe this claim." That includes "I don't care to believe this claim."

Quote :

" And as far as opting out, you might not consider there are people who take option C, "not pretending/caring/needing to believe, pending further evidence""

That's atheism. Not believing, pending further evidence. I'm not sure where I'm failing at communicating this concept. I believe you think that Atheism means that a person is certain that there is no god and is making that claim. You are right to not believe that claim either, but nearly every reasonable atheist isn't making this claim. They are merely rejecting, as you are, the positive claims made by the theists.

Rejection of claims pending evidence is the default as per skepticism (which is why I included it in the thread title).

Quote :

"Basically, your definitions seems to imply that people need to either believe or not believe even if hesitant and tentative...I'm telling you that there are people who are neither...and while its anecdotal (me), I doubt I'm the only person who feels this way"

"Not believe" isn't a positive state. It's not a positive claim. You're in that state regarding every claim until you actively believe that claim. Before you even know the claim exists, you're an atheist regarding that claim.

Quote :

"The Omega Point as being something that is both inevitable and required for our own existence"

Inevitable given enough time and/or technological advancement. I just can't say inevitable for sure because a comet could wipe us out or we could kill ourselves long before this point. Or technological advancement could be abated and we not reach this point before we're devoured by our sun.

Quote :

"Any strong anthropic principle at all would be at minimum pseudo-theistic IMO, although I would like to hear what your thoughts on this are. "

I don't know how it's psuedo-theistic. It's a truism. We know the must exist in a state that supports observers because we're here to observe it. I honestly don't find the principle that useful because it doesn't really prove anything. We know that "some process" caused us to be here to ask these questions. Stating that "some process" must have existed tells us absolutely nothing about "some process."

7/6/2011 2:32:40 AM

you took my "Option C" quote pretty far out of context with your reply...you basically bolded the opposite of my point

i just think you don't realize that there are people who basically don't care to worry about if there is a god or not

[Edited on July 6, 2011 at 3:15 AM. Reason : nighty night]

7/6/2011 3:07:17 AM

I think what TreeTwista is getting at is that there is a third option of Agnostic Fence-Sitters. You say that people either believe "There is God" or don't believe it. But if you think of belief as having a subjective probability of greater than 50%, lack of belief is a subjective probability of less than 50%. But that still leaves the possibility that someone could have a subjective probability equal to 50%, and TreeTwista is saying that if you're agnostic and don't believe you can know the truth about the existence of God, then the correct belief to hold is an equal likelihood of either.

7/6/2011 3:16:29 AM

are you a God?

7/6/2011 7:25:17 AM

Yes.

I'll address TreeTwista and Shadowrunner in a bit when I get to work. Short answer: after some thought I think I understand what you mean about agnosticism (generally to the deistic concept of god) but not about specific god claims.

7/6/2011 7:53:22 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

7/6/2011 8:53:46 AM

Quote :

"Inevitable given enough time and/or technological advancement. I just can't say inevitable for sure because a comet could wipe us out or we could kill ourselves long before this point."

You don't find it to be inevitable because you're not considering the actual argument. Granted, I never actually outlined it in the first place here.

The anthropic principle is where universes evolved based on their ability to create more, similar, daughter universes. The ability of a universe to create black holes is commonly quoted as a mechanism for this. The strongest possible form of the anthropic principle is where universes are self-selected based on the presence of intelligent life, which fine-tunes (sound familiar) the conditions to be perfect for more life in subsequent daughter universes.

Maybe this is pseudo-theistic and maybe it's not. But there is strong rational evidence for the above form of the anthropic principle, since it would basically completely fix the Fermi Paradox.

So if more people started thinking in terms of ideas like the strong anthropic principle, where would the line between religion and reason fall?

7/6/2011 9:03:26 AM

There are two different kinds of Atheism

It is used as a generic umbrella term for the lack of belief in gods - a lack of theism. This is called "Implicit Atheism" (also knwon as "Negative Atheism" or "Weak Atheism") and it includes more specific notions like Agnosticism.

It also has a narrower definition: a subset of non-theism that rejects all spirituality. This is "Explicit Atheism" (also known as "Positive Atheism" and "Strong Atheism"). It is separate from Agnosticism and Skepticism, in that it asserts "no god could possibly exist".

7/6/2011 9:09:59 AM

Ok, here goes.

I think that it is possible to be an apatheist or an agnostic without the baggage of a/theism.

I don't think that it's possible if someone is at all skeptical about their beliefs. If you simply are not interested in whether a god claims are true, and don't believe that the rejection of claims is the default position, then fine. I honestly don't think it's logically tenable, given the infinite and contradictory potential god claims.

Truth be told, you can call yourself whatever you want. The purpose of me going into it was to illustrate that modern atheism isn't "THERE IS NO GOD" so much as "Your god claims are unproven therefore it makes sense to reject them pending further evidence."

7/6/2011 9:13:54 AM

I don't think you're "rejecting" anything by having doubts. Disbelief is a lack of belief; it's not a rejection of belief, which, is itself a belief.

7/6/2011 9:20:07 AM

Quote :

"The anthropic principle is where universes evolved based on their ability to create more, similar, daughter universes. The ability of a universe to create black holes is commonly quoted as a mechanism for this. The strongest possible form of the anthropic principle is where universes are self-selected based on the presence of intelligent life, which fine-tunes (sound familiar) the conditions to be perfect for more life in subsequent daughter universes. "

That's a form of anthropic principle combined with Multiverse Theory. I don't think that it's proven and I don't know the theoretical physics well enough behind String Theory and M-Theory that gets people to that conclusion. I can't say it's not true just because I don't understand it, but I don't believe it until someone provides more proof than complex mathematical theory.

Quote :

"Maybe this is pseudo-theistic and maybe it's not. But there is strong rational evidence for the above form of the anthropic principle, since it would basically completely fix the Fermi Paradox."

There is strong rational evidence for the truism that is the general anthropic principle (The Universe must have developed the environment conducive for observers to exist because observers exist).

I don't see the strong rational evidence for Multiverse Theory. I need to read the Grand Design, I guess.

Quote :

"So if more people started thinking in terms of ideas like the strong anthropic principle, where would the line between religion and reason fall?"

I don't think it's doing science any favors by making assumptions like "There are other Universes" without any empirical evidence to back it up. Maybe M-Theory is empirical; I don't think that it is. What you end up with is theists telling us that we're no better than them and their non-reasonable beliefs are justified.

7/6/2011 9:21:05 AM

Quote :

"I don't think you're "rejecting" anything by having doubts. Disbelief is a lack of belief; it's not a rejection of belief, which, is itself a belief."

Nuance.

7/6/2011 9:21:38 AM

Its the single thing that separates atheists and agnostics. Call it what you will.

7/6/2011 9:37:49 AM

Quote :

"That's a form of anthropic principle combined with Multiverse Theory. I don't think that it's proven and I don't know the theoretical physics well enough behind String Theory and M-Theory that gets people to that conclusion."

eh, for the record, string theory has almost nothing to do with this.

Quote :

"I don't see the strong rational evidence for Multiverse Theory. I need to read the Grand Design, I guess."

Woah there, are we having a conversation about what is proven, or what is likely. Basically every single-universe conception of reality is riddled with flaws. There is no positive evidence for multiple universes, but given the possible answers are 1 and >1, and the evidence almost completely rules out the possibility of just 1, then what are you saying when you tell me that we don't have rational evidence for Multiverse theory?

On the contrary, I would say that we have bountiful rational evidence for Multiverse theory, although we have no direct evidence (nor should we).

Wouldn't it be kind of silly to go through life thinking about only what is confirmed, versus what is probable? I mean, I'm just about 100% convinced that the US government has conspiracies that are as of yet unknown to the public. History actually supports this, if you consider the times records are released versus the times they apply for. But I can't be sure, and the one thing I'm clearly lacking is direct evidence, which is inherent to this thought exercise. But I also find it most likely that they are not Earth-shatteringly important. The most rational view is that the current conspiracies fit in the scale and scope of past conspiracies, although this is very far from a scientific approach, which requires evidence.

[Edited on July 6, 2011 at 9:46 AM. Reason : ]

7/6/2011 9:42:30 AM

my god, its full of stars!

7/6/2011 10:00:36 AM

Quote :

"Woah there, are we having a conversation about what is proven, or what is likely. Basically every single-universe conception of reality is riddled with flaws. There is no positive evidence for multiple universes, but given the possible answers are 1 and >1, and the evidence almost completely rules out the possibility of just 1, then what are you saying when you tell me that we don't have rational evidence for Multiverse theory?"

And that's all well and good rationally, but reason only gets you so far. Reason and (empirical) evidence are key, but evidence trumps reason. Consider the situation where what you rationally think should occur doesn't match what you and everyone else observes. Which do you go with?

You can't get from "is incredibly likely" to "I'm justified in believing this" without empirical evidence. It's exactly like the existence of aliens in the Universe. I think it's almost certain that it's true given rational evidence, but without proof what does that even mean? Is it helpful or useful in any way, especially considering we're trying to push the notion that you shouldn't believe something without evidence?

Quote :

"Wouldn't it be kind of silly to go through life thinking about only what is confirmed, versus what is probable?"

I'm not suggesting that we never conjecture. But basing a world-view or philosophy around conjecture is folly and no better than theism. Great scientific innovation starts with conjecture. But it leads to evidence.

Quote :

"I mean, I'm just about 100% convinced that the US government has conspiracies that are as of yet unknown to the public."

This claim is so general that it's akin to "there are almost certainly aliens" or "there are almost certainly multiple Universes." It's not really saying anything.

Now any given particular conspiracy theory does have evidence (on contradictory evidence) that can be examined.

Quote :

"The most rational view is that the current conspiracies fit in the scale and scope of past conspiracies, although this is very far from a scientific approach, which requires evidence."

We use reason to guide the scientific approach. Requiring evidence doesn't throw reason out the window. Bottom line, you definitely should not believe a claim that doesn't make sense rationally, but you should not believe a claim on reason alone. Reason and evidence get you to justified belief.

7/6/2011 10:02:50 AM

Quote :

"You can't get from "is incredibly likely" to "I'm justified in believing this" without empirical evidence."

Oh lord, I definitely feel that we're in semantics land here. I tend to say that I "believe" something if I find it to be the most likely. If it's more likely that intelligent aliens exist versus don't exist, then I feel comfortable saying that I believe aliens exist (formally, at or before 13.7 billion years universe age, comoving coordinates). I don't want to keep arguing with you about this because we empirically have the same position, I just use the word "believe" in a different way than you do.

Let's formalize a little better. We've discussed the following:
- Existence of the Multiverse
- Existence of intelligent aliens (vague but I'll leave it for now)
- Existence of active US government conspiracies

For every one of these, there is a good reason that we have not gathered the evidence, which is that the evidence is extraordinarily burdensome to collect. The most important philosophical and almost spiritual question is how we handle the realities of living in a world that expands vastly beyond the horizons of our knowledge.

This is now a good time to bring up Possibilianism. This is undeniably a philosophy based in rationalism (meaning not directly spiritual or theological).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possibilianism

Quote :

"Possibilianism is a philosophy which rejects both the diverse claims of traditional theism and the positions of certainty in atheism in favor of a middle, exploratory ground.[1][2][3][4][5] The term was first defined by neuroscientist David Eagleman in relation to his book of fiction Sum.[6] Asked whether he was an atheist or a religious person on a National Public Radio interview in February, 2009, he replied "I call myself a Possibilian: I'm open to...ideas that we don't have any way of testing right now."[6] In a subsequent interview with the New York Times, Eagleman expanded on the definition:"

I think the bold part could best be described as a "personal disposition", although it is consistent with rationalism from its very conception.

And this doesn't come close to wrapping up my problems with purely evidence-centered atheism. How do you address the placebo effect? Prayer clearly causes people to live better lives. There is absolutely solid evidence for this through scientific studies. How does one reconcile that, which is a lifestyle item, with an atheistic world view? For the religious, lifestyle and world view most certainly connect. I mean, the existence of meatland influences (or is supposed to influence) their actions towards others.

As much as people like Richard Dawkins have talked about the freedom that comes with accepting the absence of a higher power and the expectations that come with it, they have failed in following that up by actually playing a positive role as community leaders. If your ethics are purely utilitarian (but I know they probably are not), it's honestly hard to justify an overtly atheistic position. You really don't make anyone happier. As much as atheists claim that happiness isn't exclusive with their views, almost all of them fail to put that into practice.

7/6/2011 10:35:33 AM

Quote :

"I tend to say that I "believe" something if I find it to be the most likely. If it's more likely that intelligent aliens exist versus don't exist, then I feel comfortable saying that I believe aliens exist (formally, at or before 13.7 billion years universe age, comoving coordinates). I don't want to keep arguing with you about this because we empirically have the same position, I just use the word "believe" in a different way than you do."

I think you're right about this. At its core, even my definition of belief relies on accepting what is absolutely most likely without absolute certainty.

Quote :

"For every one of these, there is a good reason that we have not gathered the evidence, which is that the evidence is extraordinarily burdensome to collect. The most important philosophical and almost spiritual question is how we handle the realities of living in a world that expands vastly beyond the horizons of our knowledge."

Well, philosophically I think the answer lies in a combination of reason and evidence, heavily favoring evidence to expand those horizons.

Quote :

"I'm open to...ideas that we don't have any way of testing right now."

I think this hits on the nuance above. Not believing a claim or even rejecting it doesn't mean that you are not "open to" the possibility that the claim could be proven in the future. I am open to the possibly that I'm wrong about Yahweh and I'll burn in Hell.

Quote :

"How do you address the placebo effect? Prayer clearly causes people to live better lives. There is absolutely solid evidence for this through scientific studies. How does one reconcile that, which is a lifestyle item, with an atheistic world view? For the religious, lifestyle and world view most certainly connect. I mean, the existence of meatland influences (or is supposed to influence) their actions towards others. "

A) I don't believe that scientific studies support the claim that "prayer causes people to live better lives." and I don't know what that has to do with the placebo effect. Can you expand further on what "better lives" means in terms of the scientific studies that prove this effect.

B)Atheism isn't actually a worldview. It's the lack of a belief in dieties. Even for the non-religious, whatever worldview they do have (secular humanism or naturalism for example) certainly connects with their lifestyle.

I donate blood and regularly donate to charity because of my humanism and because I want to illustrate for others that you don't have to be religious to be kind to others. There are plenty of secular charity organizations that do good work in the world.

Quote :

"they have failed in following that up by actually playing a positive role as community leaders."

I don't think that that is their role to play. Atheism isn't about "filling the gap that the social and charitable functions of church left behind." There are plenty of secular ways to fill that gap. You don't need a belief in a higher power to be charitable, even if the studies show a correlation between religiosity and charity. (I question donations to a church as "charity")

Quote :

"If your ethics are purely utilitarian (but I know they probably are not), it's honestly hard to justify an overtly atheistic position."

Atheism doesn't have anything to do with ethics. It's simply the lack of belief in deities. The canard "you can't have morals without God" is not supported by evidence.

Quote :

"You really don't make anyone happier. As much as atheists claim that happiness isn't exclusive with their views, almost all of them fail to put that into practice."

Skepticism isn't about making people happy. It's giving them a pathway to truth. I honestly think that increasing the alignment of your beliefs with reality is more important than being blissfully ignorant because there are plenty of reasons to be happy with reality without having the believe in fairy tales. And beliefs inform actions (as you mention above). I'd rather everyone's actions be informed by beliefs based in reality.

I mean, being wasted on opium permanently would probably be pretty blissful too.


[Edited on July 6, 2011 at 11:07 AM. Reason : .]

7/6/2011 10:59:55 AM

Here is another quote from Eagleman, via Wikipedia:

Quote :

"But with Possibilianism I'm hoping to define a new position -- one that emphasizes the exploration of new, unconsidered possibilities. Possibilianism is comfortable holding multiple ideas in mind; it is not interested in committing to any particular story."

There is already a term for this, which lacks all the pandering connotations of possibilianism: inquiry. Inquiry is an eminently more useful and eloquent term, as it values equally our curiosity as well as our skepticism. It does not, in other words, require us to resist tentative conclusions out of fear that we might be wrong, or, as is obviously the main concern of possiblianism, offensive.

Quoting Frog:

Quote :

"As much as people like Richard Dawkins have talked about the freedom that comes with accepting the absence of a higher power and the expectations that come with it, they have failed in following that up by actually playing a positive role as community leaders."

You obviously don't know much about Richard Dawkins. Off the top of my head, here are some community services performed by Richard Dawkins (roughly in order of importance):

- He is one the world's leading proponents of rational, non-superstitious thinking.
- He has made the science of evolution digestible to millions.
- He campaigns vigorously against faith schools in the UK, which serve only to stultify and divide that country's youth.
- He leverages his celebrity to promote charitable giving, particularly to disaster victims, which serves both the immediate purpose of helping people in need while also helping break the links between charity and proselytizing.

And I'm not exactly a fanboy. I think he's a bit of a whiner, frankly. I've read one of his books and have been to one of his lectures, yet I know all of that. So it's probably safe to assume he does other things as well. Nice try, though.

[Edited on July 6, 2011 at 11:21 AM. Reason : ]

7/6/2011 11:07:09 AM

I have a hard time considering him as a productive force with junk like this.

Look, I follow his stuff too. I come short of reading his books, which I admit I have no desire to read. I just think he's lacking something. Neil Degrasse Tyson has made most of the points I would make, with the addition that things like the advert above lacks a serious addressing of life purpose. Not only that, but when people like Tyson talk about possibilities like life on Earth coming from Mars, Dawkins is much more-so dragged along as opposed to integrating the beauty of the great unknown into his appreciation of nature.

This isn't just about sensitivity, to me it's unfulfilling at best to see statements like "NOW STOP WORRYING AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE", and I feel like that very statement captures Dawkin's view of life-purpose very well. It almost feels condescending, and I openly admit to having an emotional reaction to such things. It's just... not trivial. We're not mindless robots that get some dopamine and then don't need any other purpose from life. I mean, disco said it pretty well

Quote :

"I mean, being wasted on opium permanently would probably be pretty blissful too."

7/6/2011 11:53:44 AM

Quote :

"No, the foundations of religion and science are fundamentally different. You have faith, or you have evidence."

yes and no. They both are based on an unprovable premise.

7/6/2011 12:28:16 PM

Quote :

"This isn't just about sensitivity, to me it's unfulfilling at best to see statements like "NOW STOP WORRYING AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE", and I feel like that very statement captures Dawkin's view of life-purpose very well. It almost feels condescending, and I openly admit to having an emotional reaction to such things. It's just... not trivial. We're not mindless robots that get some dopamine and then don't need any other purpose from life. I mean, disco said it pretty well"

Sorry, I don't follow. All human life will eventually come to an end. There is no inherent meaning to life besides what we give it. I accept that, yet I still enjoy life, and I still have a desire to make a difference. In this context, "stop worrying" doesn't mean "don't give a shit about anything." It means stop worrying about being sentenced to eternal hellfire for not believing in the right god.

Quote :

"yes and no. They both are based on an unprovable premise."

The only thing that isn't an unprovable premise is that something exists. Yes, we could be brains in a vat or in the Matrix. I doubt that's true, but we wouldn't know. The difference is that I don't have to speculate to not believe in a deity, I just haven't been convinced. Religion is speculation. That's why faith and science are not on the same level.

[Edited on July 6, 2011 at 12:40 PM. Reason : ]

7/6/2011 12:37:54 PM

Quote :

"There is no inherent meaning to life besides what we give it."

I don't have all the answers here, but as a very weak statement I disagree with this. There is obviously something more to it than this. Ethics are not infinitely subjective, although, yes, I agree that they are subjective. To some extent we have an intuitive understanding of the meaning of life, and to some extent we are still discovering it.

7/6/2011 12:44:36 PM

Quote :

"The only thing that isn't an unprovable premise is that something exists."

no. what is unprovable is that observation is undeniable truth. You need to know this basic limitation of science in order to properly perform it.

Quote :

"The difference is that I don't have to speculate to not believe in a deity, I just haven't been convinced."

BULLSHIT. To say "there is no God" is just as speculatory as to say "there is a God"

7/6/2011 12:53:03 PM

Quote :

"There is obviously something more to it than this. Ethics are not infinitely subjective, although, yes, I agree that they are subjective."

It is obvious that there is much more at work than our brains are capable of understanding, but that does not equate to their being any "meaning" to life. Certainly, our actions and behaviors have meaning to other humans, but the universe doesn't care about our deeds. We've constructed various codes of conduct to make life more agreeable, but the end game is the same no matter what: human life comes to an end.

Quote :

"no. what is unprovable is that observation is undeniable truth. You need to know this basic limitation of science in order to properly perform it."

Observation isn't undeniable truth, it's just our best guess, and I never stated otherwise. The only thing that is provable, as I said, is that something exists. It's perfectly possible that our senses deceive us.

Quote :

"BULLSHIT. To say "there is no God" is just as speculatory as to say "there is a God""

Except I'm not saying "there is no God." I'm saying, "I don't believe in God." There are many things that may exist but I don't actively believe in, simply because I haven't seen anything that would cause me to believe in them. There may be aliens, and there probably are, but if I write a book describing aliens and cite my book as a legitimate description of how aliens look/act, that's going a bit far, isn't it?

[Edited on July 6, 2011 at 12:59 PM. Reason : ]

7/6/2011 12:54:26 PM

Quote :

"BULLSHIT. To say "there is no God" is just as speculatory as to say "there is a God""

Strawman

7/6/2011 1:06:30 PM

Quote :

"BULLSHIT. To say "there is no God" is just as speculatory as to say "there is a God""

You have to be constantly told this, and I'll be the 3rd person to tell you this in 3 posts: No one (especially in this thread) is making this claim. Not even Richard Dawkins makes this claim if you'd bothered to read something once in a while.

Quote :

"no. what is unprovable is that observation is undeniable truth. You need to know this basic limitation of science in order to properly perform it."

And not only what destroyer says, science has built in checks to address sensory deception. There's no peer review or falsifiability in religious faith.

Quote :

"I have a hard time considering him as a productive force with junk like this. Look, I follow his stuff too. I come short of reading his books, which I admit I have no desire to read. I just think he's lacking something. Neil Degrasse Tyson has made most of the points I would make, with the addition that things like the advert above lacks a serious addressing of life purpose. Not only that, but when people like Tyson talk about possibilities like life on Earth coming from Mars, Dawkins is much more-so dragged along as opposed to integrating the beauty of the great unknown into his appreciation of nature. This isn't just about sensitivity, to me it's unfulfilling at best to see statements like "NOW STOP WORRYING AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE", and I feel like that very statement captures Dawkin's view of life-purpose very well. It almost feels condescending, and I openly admit to having an emotional reaction to such things. It's just... not trivial. We're not mindless robots that get some dopamine and then don't need any other purpose from life. I mean, disco said it pretty well"

A)That wasn't his campaign, if I remember correctly, he was just endorsing it as a well known British atheist.
B)Try The Greatest Show on Earth. Great book, way less preachy than The God Delusion (because it ain't about religion, derp), and an excellent read.

[Edited on July 6, 2011 at 1:29 PM. Reason : .]

7/6/2011 1:24:24 PM

I take back what I wrote, I actually do think that book looks appealing.

7/6/2011 1:36:13 PM

Quote :

"Ethics are not infinitely subjective, although, yes, I agree that they are subjective."

I would side with Sam Harris here and argue that ethics are probably not subjective, except in the sense that everyone is free to come up with their own definition of the word. Once you decide on what ethics means, and what its objectives are, then you immediately enter a discussion based on objective facts.

Harris defines moral actions as those that increase the flourishing (or decrease the suffering) of conscious creatures. With that definition agreed on, there is not a moral question that exists that cannot be objectively studied. Either gender equality increases human flourishing, or it doesn't. Either female genital mutilation increases human suffering, or it doesn't.

The same, of course, is true about theistic ethics, which tends to define good ethical behavior as that which is obedient God's will. Either God approves of slavery, or he doesn't. Either God condemns homosexuality, or he doesn't. These questions, ludicrous as they certainly are, are nevertheless subject to objective reasoning.

There are many things, including ethics, about which we will probably never fully understand. But ethics is just one example of a field in which, if we are to care at all about ourselves and our fellow human beings, it is fucking necessary to start nailing down some tentative conclusions, and not just look stupidly at stars and think about endless possibilities, worthwhile as that may be.

[Edited on July 6, 2011 at 1:50 PM. Reason : ]

7/6/2011 1:41:53 PM