Journal Marxist Hacker 42's Journal: Out of the frying pan 101
Ok, I'm going to come right out and say it.
Atheism has no rational basis.
I'm freakin' tired of atheists claiming that the burden of proof is all one sided. I realize logically it is; but unless you have some good reason for reductionism other than "my dog got run over when I was six so I decided God was evil and I'm not even going to look at any scientific theory that might indicate he exists", give it up already. Most atheists are NOT rational thinkers, they accept any theory that fits their worldview without question and while they claim YOU should read all the latest scientific papers and believe nothing you haven't experimented and proved to yourself by reproducible experiment, they never do so themselves.
And their evangelism is so completely not subtle. Even here on slashdot, there is no journal icon for philosophy, theism, religion or God.
Focused Athiesm (Score:2)
And theism, or any religion is any better? Please...
The various religions in the world are demonstrably flawed. They make outlandish claims, ignore their internal contradictions and make little to no attempt to correct errors when science demonstrates they're full of shit.
Modern "born-again Christians" are mostly what I'm addressing here. The literalists who take the Bible as literal scientific fact are some of the biggest fools on the planet, wearing blinders and wallowing in cognitive dissonance.
I unde
Re: (Score:2)
I'm actually coming to a theory that the only real difference between any religious sect > 1500 years old, and any other religious sect > 1500 years old, is pure language.
By then, all the false perceptions have been burnt away by the fires of peer review, which exist not only in science, but also in religion.
Now back to your point:
"Athiesm stems from the idea that anything not necessary to the explanation doesn't exist as part of the explanation."
Agreed- but the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Ph
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm...I thought the observer would definitely cause the collapse, and without an observer a collapse MIGHT occur. I'd say "over time it then would approach certainty", but I don't think the phrase "over time" means much pre-Bang. :-)
Of course, the Copenhagen interpretation has the simple possibility of being wrong. And, of course, athiesm doesn't preclude the existence of *A* being. They just don't like the idea of one "supreme" being.
I have no problem with humans and this planet having been created by
Re: (Score:2)
"I have a strange feeling "Stargate" is closer to reality than Genesis. *shudder*"
That's a really scary thought but since it only requires an alien species *more* advanced than we are and not a supreme being, it's highly likely.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed- but the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Physics actually insists that an outside observer is required for the pre-planck time particle field collapse seen in the Big Bang.
If this is your understanding of the Copenhagen interpretation, then you need to go discuss this with a physicist so he can explain to you exactly how you're wrong. Because what you're saying here isn't right, in fact, it's not even wrong [rationalwiki.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I got this interpretation from a physicist: Raymond Chiao of the University of California at Berkeley.
He came up with it after his delayed-choice experiments into particle field collapse.
He ended up writing a white paper on the topic that he submitted to the Vatican on the implications of his experiment on the existence of God.
http://www.counterbalance.org/ctns-vo/chiao-body.html [counterbalance.org]
And he wasn't the only one. Andrej Grib, the Russian physicist, claims the same interpretation for a juxtaposition bet
Re: (Score:2)
He ended up writing a white paper on the topic that he submitted to the Vatican on the implications of his experiment on the existence of God.
This doesn't sound like a peer-reviewed journal that he is submitting his findings to.
So this is a case of atheism simply *not keeping up with science*.
No, it's not. Submitting a journal article to the Vatican is not proof of any legitimate science...
I can find eight hojillion kooks who think such and such implies the existence of aliens, and unicorns...
The Copenhagen interpretation is also not a scientific theory, as it is not falsifiable. the Many-Worlds interpretation stands directly contrary to the Copenhagen interpretation.
So, if your belief in god depends upon the
Re: (Score:1)
Either way, you haven't proven god.
Which is all good... Nobody's proven the "Big Bang"* either. This whole thread is based on some very bold assumptions made by some very bold people.
*the god of science
Re: (Score:2)
Either way, you haven't proven god.
Which is all good... Nobody's proven the "Big Bang"* either. This whole thread is based on some very bold assumptions made by some very bold people.
*the god of science
A) The Big Bang is not the "god" of science. Being that the Bing Bang happened without conscious choice, or design, the Big Bang itself was simply just a moment in time... and event. This is like saying that the Crucification of Jesus is the god of Christianity. It makes no sense.
B) The occurrence of the Big Bang is well indicated, as the expansion of the universe played backwards points to a point in time where the universe would have been all in the same place. The calculated time matches up with the
Re: (Score:2)
Actually- the Big Bang was concieved of by a Catholic Priest- it is a part of many ontological proofs for God.
And that is where the evidence of the Big Bang leads- to the Anthorpic Principle [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Actually- the Big Bang was concieved of by a Catholic Priest- it is a part of many ontological proofs for God.
Georges Lemaître was also a physicist, and not just a Catholic Priest.
While it may be part of many ontological proofs for a god (note these proofs don't ever prove that the Christian god would be the only possible version of the god proved), that doesn't make it correctly used. As noted below with regard to the Anthropic Principle...
And that is where the evidence of the Big Bang leads- to the Anthorpic Principle [wikipedia.org].
I'm not sure how you could link to the Anthropic Principle article and not actually read it. The Anthropic Principle is that any explanation for the universe has to accou
Re: (Score:2)
To wit, the Anthropic Principle is sufficiently satisfied by Solipsism.
Yep. It is. Are you claiming to be a Solipsist?
Re: (Score:2)
To wit, the Anthropic Principle is sufficiently satisfied by Solipsism.
Yep. It is. Are you claiming to be a Solipsist?
Did I stutter, or do you have wax in your ears?
I do not need to personally hold a claim in order to assert that it satisfies a principle.
Re: (Score:2)
"This doesn't sound like a peer-reviewed journal that he is submitting his findings to."
I've yet to find the original paper- but are you asserting the only reality exists in peer reviewed journals?
"No, it's not. Submitting a journal article to the Vatican is not proof of any legitimate science..."
Yeah, but getting a government grant in the United States to do the original experiments, probably IS.
"The Copenhagen interpretation is also not a scientific theory, as it is not falsifiable. the Many-Worlds interp
Nothing you could say could tear me away (Score:1)
from my god [youtube.com]
No theism is provable (Score:2)
In the end, if it makes you feel better to state you believe there is no god, then great. If it instead makes you feel better to believe that there is a god, that's great, too. But if you're in one group you
Re: (Score:2)
But if you're in one group you have no rational basis to state that the people in the other group are wrong, because they have the same amount of faith you have; just in a different direction.
There is a difference here. While, I cannot prove the nonexistence of all possible gods, I can prove the logical contradiction of the Christian god as literally described in the Bible.
If one wants to be a Deist, or take their theism to a point where their god is indistinguishable from the Deist god, and then just stack their traditions as a cultural matter than than a position of "Truth"... then nothing is wrong with that belief, and I will not attack it.
But when a person takes the position that their part
Re: (Score:2)
"There is a difference here. While, I cannot prove the nonexistence of all possible gods, I can prove the logical contradiction of the Christian god as literally described in the Bible."
Where in the Bible does it insist we take the Bible literally?
Re: (Score:2)
"There is a difference here. While, I cannot prove the nonexistence of all possible gods, I can prove the logical contradiction of the Christian god as literally described in the Bible."
Where in the Bible does it insist we take the Bible literally?
Forget a literal interpretation of the Bible then... Describe the Christian god, and I'll explain to you how he cannot logically exist.
Re: (Score:1)
Describe the Christian god, and I'll explain to you how he cannot logically exist.
Darn, I may have been taking you much more seriously here than warranted. I suspect you're going to confuse "opinion" and "interpretation" with "logic", and prolly pretty plainly so, but I guess I'd better see it to be sure, so how about this: One facet generally ascribed to the Christian God by His followers is "omnipotence". Please explain how He then cannot logically exist.
Re: (Score:2)
One facet generally ascribed to the Christian God by His followers is "omnipotence".
This is an incomplete description of the Christian god. Or are you prescribing that his only quality is "omnipotence". If this were true, then the Christian god is functionally equivalent to the sum of all energy in the world.
This could be considered a god, but it certainly isn't the Christian god.
Re: (Score:1)
This is an incomplete description of the Christian god.
Well, it's pretty much definitionally (within the Christian religion) that any description that us mere mortal humans could come up with is an incomplete description of the Christian god. So you would need to clarify what you mean by "incomplete" beyond just your general indication of disapproval here. That is, assuming for the sake of discussion an infinite god, of infinite complexity ["God works in mysterious ways"], then all possible descriptions of
Re: (Score:2)
So you would need to clarify what you mean by "incomplete" beyond just your general indication of disapproval here.
Well, there are more than just the Christian gods that are "omnipotent". I will grant you that I cannot logically disprove the existence of all gods. However, when I ask you to describe the "Christian god", I'm asking for a description that is sufficient to describe the Christian god as distinct from any other god, such as YHWH, Allah, Shiva, Odin, Zeus, Ba'al, etc.
As such, describing an impersonal, unknowable, and nondescript god is kind of pointless... that's not the Christian god, and if he is imperson
Re: (Score:2)
"Describe the Christian god, and I'll explain to you how he cannot logically exist."
The modern form preached by the Catholic Church, which has nothing to do with the Bible?
"That force or personality, triune in nature by divine revelation, which selected the anthropic constants during the inflationary period of the Big Bang".
Re: (Score:2)
"That force or personality, triune in nature by divine revelation, which selected the anthropic constants during the inflationary period of the Big Bang".
Your definition is insufficient: What divine revelation? What triune nature?
I have asserted that I can only logically disprove the Christian god, not all gods.
If you wish to throw out the Bible and all ecumenical tradition and describe your god as: "That force or personality, which selected the anthropic constants during the inflationary period of the Big Bang"
Then, logically such a force or personality has to exist. (Whether it is by definition a "god" or not is up for debate in that case.)
But such an i
Re: (Score:2)
"Your definition is insufficient: What divine revelation? What triune nature?"
For that, you need an understanding of history. I find it interesting that you are unaware of these terms.
"If you wish to throw out the Bible and all ecumenical tradition and describe your god as: "That force or personality, which selected the anthropic constants during the inflationary period of the Big Bang""
I hold that doesn't "throw out the Bible", but instead puts the Bible into correct, contextual, historical perspective as
Re: (Score:2)
For that, you need an understanding of history. I find it interesting that you are unaware of these terms.
I have a sense of history. And I know that "divine revelation" refers to the Bible, and that the "triune nature" refers to the Trinity. But the point here is that you're leaving details incomplete, and nondescript. I told you that the literal Biblical description of the Christian god is logically impossible, and you told me that the Bible isn't intended to be entirely literal.
Thus, I ask: "ok, describe the Christian god" to which you point back to the Bible, which you just said should not be taken litera
Re: (Score:2)
"I have a sense of history. And I know that "divine revelation" refers to the Bible"
Uh, no. The Bible's a part of it. A small part. But it's certainly NOT all of it. That's what I meant by an UNDERSTANDING of history- knowing what these terms meant 1500, 1600, or 1800 years ago, not necessarily what they mean today.
"Thus, I ask: "ok, describe the Christian god" to which you point back to the Bible, which you just said should not be taken literally."
Incorrect- I pointed to the Magisterial teachings, whic
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no. The Bible's a part of it. A small part. But it's certainly NOT all of it. That's what I meant by an UNDERSTANDING of history- knowing what these terms meant 1500, 1600, or 1800 years ago, not necessarily what they mean today.
So, the book of Mormon is just as relevant of a divine text as the Bible? Or what about the Vedas, you've already commented that you don't know about Hinduism.
It's odd that you accept Hinduism as rational, yet reject the Islamic god as irrational, then you dismiss the irrational Christians as believing in an irrational god, rather than a rational god that you believe in. Is it not possible that the majority of the Islamic crap we hear about constantly is an irrational interpretation of more rational teach
Re: (Score:2)
So, the book of Mormon is just as relevant of a divine text as the Bible?
Well, I have a problem with a book written by a man with his face in his hat, but in general, yes. (In analysis, most of the Book of Mormon IS the Bible- plagerism apparently meant something different to Joseph Smith).
Or what about the Vedas, you've already commented that you don't know about Hinduism.
Hard to tell, nobody can read a third of them. But there are parts of the Bagavad-Gita that I actually consider to be equal
Re: (Score:2)
Back to that eyewitness evidence thing.
Eyewitness evidence is faulty, and imperfect. There is eyewitness evidence for ghosts, and fairies, and gnomes and elves, and UNICORNS!
Should we consider it rational to believe them, rather than you know... look at the compounding evidence that contradicts their eyewitness?
Either you accept, test, and find alternate explainations for the evidence (including the idea that all the interpretations are false and the reality is somewhere between them) or you start throwing out some eyewitness evidence and accepting other. That last bit leads to prejudice, bigotry, and sometimes even racism. It is the rejection of evidence that makes atheism irrational.
You reject evidence as well! Everyone does this. It is not rational to dismiss misleading and false evidence.
Let's take an example, a person is killed by knife, and a bloody knife is found at the scene. The knife has in blood finger
Re: (Score:2)
Eyewitness evidence is faulty, and imperfect. There is eyewitness evidence for ghosts, and fairies, and gnomes and elves, and UNICORNS!
Yep. And yet, we have nothing better- because even numbers written down in a lab are nothing more than eyewitness evidence.
Should we consider it rational to believe them, rather than you know... look at the compounding evidence that contradicts their eyewitness?
The key is that the *interpretations* are not always correct, rather than the da
Re: (Score:2)
More, for not having good enough reasons for not being gullible.
Right, I think I understand your position now.
You blatantly paint skepticism as a invalid position and build from that point.
I find such a point of view to be gullible and prone to errors in beliefs.
Re: (Score:1)
What I would've posted, you took care of almost all of, and with perfect accuracy. So I'll just reinforce with some elaboration.
(Mono-)Theist - One who believes there is a god.
(Mono-)Atheist - One who believes there is no god.
Agnostic - One who remains strictly unsure, and esp. believing that such is prolly unknowable.
Maybe it's a spectrum, and so these terms as I use them are for the right, left, and center of it. That is, people can have differing levels of (necessarily irrational) faith, in whichever dir
Re: (Score:1)
I left out where I was ultimately going with that, and that is that, in that sense, atheists are *more* irrational than theists. I.e. atheists have their irrational faith just like theists do, but generally only atheists go even further in irrationality in engaging in introspective contortions about it.
I.e. theists recognize, validly, that they have a certain faith, and just accept it and usually don't think about it much beyond that. Atheists think, invalidly, that they have no faith, and furthermore typic
Re: (Score:2)
I.e. theists recognize, validly, that they have a certain faith, and just accept it and usually don't think about it much beyond that. Atheists think, invalidly, that they have no faith, and furthermore typically extend their irrationality into invalid "reasoning" about the nature of each side and faith.
Most atheists avoid the term "agnostic" because people tend to view Agnostic as a state between Theism and Atheism. It is however not. It's a separate scale from Agnostic (not knowing) to Gnostic (knowing).
Most fundamentalist Christians are Gnostic Atheists, that is they know there is a god. Agnostic Theists are more like Deists, where "there is a god, but we can't actually know anything about them."
Most Atheists though are Agnostic Atheists, in that they assert a belief that there are no gods, but that
Re: (Score:1)
I meant to imply that I think of my spectrum itself an axis of knowing, where the theoretically-holdable center position is zero surety either way, and points equidistant on either side are the same level of knowing, or "gnosticness".
So to me your labels of "gnostic" and "agnostic" as qualifiers of the labels "theist" and "atheist" seem (necessarily) arbitrarily applied. To wit, if I'm reading it correctly, it looks like you're saying that someone who's 99.95% sure that there is no god, is an agnostic athei
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying to temporarily unhook my brain from my established frame of reference to try to understand your words to hopefully see yours (to then be able to evaluate it), but I may be doing a poor job.
I actually think you're doing fairly well.
You may also be conflating fundamentalism with surety of faith.
Yes, I was. Thank you for realizing that and pointing it out.
I think what also is confusing the matter is the two uses of "knowing" here.
Yes, this would be a complicating factor. When I speak of "Gnostic" vs "Agnostic" I'm referring to the philosophical concept of "knowledge". A true belief that is held. That is, I cannot "know" that Socrates was a woman, because it is a belief contrary to fact. If I assert to know that Socrates was a woman, then I am asserting that my belief is true.
Thus, "belief in a god, or gods" is the definition f
Re: (Score:1)
We're still mixing things here, like (what I'll call) mono-atheism with poly-atheism, and knowing for oneself vs. what is ultimately knowable, I think. Also, your "state of gods" is undefined, and I think these might be important (to my grokking you [which, incidently, sounds obscene!]).
But s
Re: (Score:2)
mono-atheism with poly-atheism
These terms are oxymoronic. "Atheism" means "lack of a belief in a god". Atheism by definition denies the existence of any and all gods. The assertion of a specific lack of belief in any particular god is a singular point and of little meaning... are you poly-atheistic because you deny the existence of the Norse and Greek gods?
knowing for oneself vs. what is ultimately knowable
This is one of the central arguments of epistemology: is there objective fact, and if there is how close can we get to it.
Throughout, I'm trying to use the epistemological definiti
Re: (Score:2)
"Known by me, and it is knowable by anyone using logic. The god presented by the Bible is contradicted by plain and evidence fact as much as the Greek gods on Olympus and the Norse gods in the higher branches of the world tree."
How so? I don't believe so. The mythology is that the Greek Gods inherited their position from the Kracken, and the Kracken were themselves created beings. Same with most of the Norse pantheon; the world existed before they did.
Re: (Score:2)
"Known by me, and it is knowable by anyone using logic. The god presented by the Bible is contradicted by plain and evidence fact as much as the Greek gods on Olympus and the Norse gods in the higher branches of the world tree."
How so? I don't believe so. The mythology is that the Greek Gods inherited their position from the Kracken, and the Kracken were themselves created beings. Same with most of the Norse pantheon; the world existed before they did.
Um. No. The Greek gods were created/subservient to the Titans. The Titans themselves were created/subservient to the Prôtogenoi, who were born at the same time as the Universe. Not created, but born the same as the Universe. The Prôtogenoi also being existent even today, as they are fundamental ideas and constructs of the world. For example, Chronos, who is time.
The Norse gods were uncovered from a mythical salt lick, and then slew Ymir who was one of the first two beings to come into being.
Re: (Score:1)
So your definitions seem to be:
1) Gnostic Atheist would say: "There is no god(s), and this is knowable."
2) Agnostic Atheist would say: "There is no god(s), but this is not knowable."
3) Gnostic Theist would say: "There is a god(s), and this is knowable."
4) Agnostic Theist would say: "There is a god(s), but this is not knowable."
And then simply by virtue of theists counting (what we deem as) supernatural evidence but atheists precluding it, theists will tend to be gnostic (as their qualifier) while atheists w
Re: (Score:2)
By the Nicene Council, all Catholics are Agnostic Theists- for while we take the Supernatural into account, we don't claim it to be objective or knowable.
I agree- I'm MUCH richer for this line of thought, thank you snowgirl.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you got the idea. I'm happy we were able to successfully transmit information. :)
Re: (Score:2)
By the Nicene Council, all Catholics are Agnostic Theists- for while we take the Supernatural into account, we don't claim it to be objective or knowable.
This was not the position of the Catholic Church in the middle ages.
Re: (Score:2)
This was not the position of the Catholic Church in the middle ages.
It actually was the position of the Catholic CHURCH in the middle ages- certain SECULAR monarchs had different ideas (such as in Spain and the infamous Spanish Inquisition).
Re: (Score:2)
You claims are considered heresy, and you shall be excommunicated for them.
Or wait, did the protestants not get excommunicated for disagreeing with the Pope?
Re: (Score:2)
Heresy only says that we know what you are teaching to be WRONG. Not that we're absolutely sure our way is RIGHT.
Gnosticism is a heresy in and of itself.
Re: (Score:1)
...Catholics are Agnostic Theists- for while we take the Supernatural into account, we don't claim it to be objective or knowable.
Mm, technically I think you're talking about an additional level of indirection here. While we were talking about the sense of being agnostic about the existence of God, you're talking about being agnostic about the existence of a class of evidence for the existence of God.
Re: (Score:2)
True. I'm also trying to reconcile this with Gnosticism being a heresy in it's own right.
Re: (Score:2)
Heresy only says that we know what you are teaching to be WRONG. Not that we're absolutely sure our way is RIGHT.
Oh... it's the claim that "we know wha tyou are teaching is wrong"... so like... the claim that the earth revolves around the sun? Like that heresy?
Gnosticism is a heresy in and of itself.
This is your opinion and not one that is shared by your church.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh... it's the claim that "we know wha tyou are teaching is wrong"... so like... the claim that the earth revolves around the sun? Like that heresy?
Actually the claim was that the earth revolves around the sun in a perfect circle- which is wrong.
This is your opinion and not one that is shared by your church.
Then why did the Nicene Council happen?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the claim was that the earth revolves around the sun in a perfect circle- which is wrong.
It was more accurate than everything orbiting the Earth. Also, even modern relativity doesn't give us the exactly correct model.
So, now you're going to support a charge of heresy for anything and everything, because nothing is knowingly true?
Come on... you're better than that aren't you?
Then why did the Nicene Council happen?
That Gnosticism is a different form of Gnosticism. You're committing the fallacy of equivocation.
Meh (Score:2)
Theism has the same problem Linux has: Too many distros. If it was a little more unified, it would be easier to get people into the fold.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in the same boat as you. My mother is and was religious, but my dad didn't care. I was raised secular.
I eventually became a Christian for the social interaction, and I still feel that Christianity offers a lot in terms of social connection to people.
But as I grew up, I've realized that taking Christianity truly seriously requires rejecting provable empirical fact, and so I stopped taking their dogma as infallible fact, and concentrating on the positive stuff.
Then as I further grew up, I realized that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. At this point in time, I couldn't care less about proof and more about how I think God's an arrogant dickhead. His prerogative, to be sure, but I just can't relate.
Well, he does explicitly call himself "a jealous God" in the Ten Commandments, so I could see some justification for thinking him an "arrogant dickhead". But the Christian faith also prescribes a belief that the personality of their god in the Old Testament is different from the personality of their god now and in the New Testament... you know, after Jesus came to Earth to experience what it is like to be man, and be tempted, even though through omniscience he should have already known that...
I will agree
Re: (Score:2)
"My mother is and was religious, but my dad didn't care. I was raised secular."
I hold that most atheism, and in fact most secularism today, can be linked to "my dad didn't care" (HOPEFULLY for your sake, he cared about other things, just not religion- but far too many men in America today I can't even say that about).
Whenever a man in Knights of Columbus complains about teenagers leaving the Church, I bring this up- that if fathers cared, there would be no "recovering Catholics".
"Then as I further grew up,
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget that we are into the second generation of men who are prevented from truly being fathers.
Re: (Score:2)
2nd generation of WHITE men. Native Americans had their kids taken away into missionary schools throughout the 1800s clear up until the 1950s. African Americans whose ancestors suffered through slavery, also experienced this- and it was specifically mentioned by Fredrick Douglass in his treatise on the subject of slavery way back in 1855:
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=DouMybo.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=3&division=div2 [virginia.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, yes, I remember the mention of Frederick Douglass in prior discussions we have had on the topic. Thank you for the reminder.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah- but this is the first time I've found a way to directly link to that chapter. I've GOT to facebook that link.
Re: (Score:2)
"My mother is and was religious, but my dad didn't care. I was raised secular."
I hold that most atheism, and in fact most secularism today, can be linked to "my dad didn't care" (HOPEFULLY for your sake, he cared about other things, just not religion- but far too many men in America today I can't even say that about).
Yes, of course! It all stems from my dad being a horrible person, it all makes sense now!!!
Except that my younger sister is a reactionary charismatic Christian, my eldest sister is a devout Catholic...
Re: (Score:2)
"Yes, of course! It all stems from my dad being a horrible person, it all makes sense now!!!"
He isn't a horrible person. Only a lukewarm one.
"Except that my younger sister is a reactionary charismatic Christian,"
Almost as bad as an athiest. One needs to be a biblical literalist for that position.
Re: (Score:2)
He isn't a horrible person. Only a lukewarm one.
Interesting in how you're able to judge the character of my father without being witness to him. He is in fact a horrible person.
Almost as bad as an athiest. One needs to be a biblical literalist for that position.
Quite agreed that she has to be a biblical literalist, but as I've been arguing with Bill Dog, I don't claim knowledge that no god exists. If your god were to exist he's more than free to give me evidence, and I can enumerate such evidence that would convince me.
I would like to ask you: what evidence would you need to convince you that there are no gods?
Re: (Score:2)
It changes, based on the science I know or think I know.
Right now, a reasonable explanation why no observer is necessary for particle field collapse, plus on the more coincidental side, a reason for a purposeless, unplanned universe to exist for 13.5 billion years.
Re: (Score:2)
It changes, based on the science I know or think I know.
Right now, a reasonable explanation why no observer is necessary for particle field collapse...
Again, as it has been attempted to be explained, the "observer" need not be sentient. In the double slit experiment, the results change not on if a sentient being examines the evidence of which slit the particle-wave travels through but rather if one sets them up to simply be detected.
In another set of terms, the "observer" in the double slit experiment that changes the results is not a sentient being but a particle wave.
Being that it could have been a random particle, should we revere a non-sentient natur
Re: (Score:2)
"You're asking a contradictory sentence. You want a reason for a purposeless event? By very definition the purposeless are without reason."
Yep, and that's the problem. I have a *really* hard time believing that a statistical bubble in the omniverse could last 13.5 Billion years without help. M-theory fails for me on that.
And isn't "without reason" admitting to it being rather "unreasonable"?
"Again, as it has been attempted to be explained, the "observer" need not be sentient. "
I'm not going for a sentient
Re: (Score:2)
M-theory fails for me on that.
M-theory is a subset of string theory. String theory suffers from a similar problem as religious beliefs in that it is rarely falsifiable.
It also is incredibly prone to the same post hoc explanations of religious beliefs... "these are my beliefs, and look, everything works out with reality." Then a piece of evidence is presented which contradicts their model, and they simply go back to the drawing board and pound things out until their model version n+1 does account for everything in reality again.
Notably
Re: (Score:2)
God *became* sentient at one point in history, does not mean God had to be sentient at all points in history.
I'm not even sure what sentience would mean to a being outside of our space and time.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not even sure what sentience would mean to a being outside of our space and time.
Same thing it means for everyone and anything else: self aware.
Re: (Score:2)
Same thing it means for everyone and anything else: self aware.
How can an infinite being be self-aware? Or conversely, not self-aware?
What does self-awareness mean outside of time?
And does this mean low functioning autistics, who show no self-awareness, would not be sentient?
Re: (Score:2)
How can an infinite being be self-aware?
Please review the prior argument. The "observer" that caused the state collapse that resulted in the Universe need not be infinite.
And does this mean low functioning autistics, who show no self-awareness, would not be sentient?
Generally, yes. This is also partly one of the reasons why particularly low-functioning autistics are not allowed to enter into contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
Then as I further grew up, I realized that much like the quote goes, "[His] followers are thick and ordinary".
Good enough for a sig.
Re: (Score:1)
<pedantry>
I would've placed a "[sic]" after the "all right" in there. Unless in the UK "thick" and "ordinary" means "mostly right" or some other alternative to "completely right".
</pedantry>
A reasonable position for reductionism (Score:2)
I'm freakin' tired of atheists claiming that the burden of proof is all one sided. I realize logically it is; but unless you have some good reason for reductionism other than "my dog got run over when I was six so I decided God was evil and I'm not even going to look at any scientific theory that might indicate he exists", give it up already. (emphasis added)
Ok, so you realize that logically the burden of proof is in your court. This is a good start.
Next position: the reason for reductionism, it's called "Occam's Razor". Don't multiply entities unnecessarily. Otherwise, why not believe in Unicorns, and Fairies, and Elves? They're all as reasonable beliefs as the Christian god...
The truth is, reductionism should be the default. I believe this, and I practice it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Ok, so you realize that logically the burden of proof is in your court. This is a good start."
Yep. And I hold that by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics- the big bang needed an observer.
Not necessarily an intelligent, omniscient, omnipotent one, but an observer nonetheless.
Which makes Occam's Razor, and other forms of reductionism, completely irrelevant to the conversation and in denial of quantum physics as we currently understand it, particularily Raymond Chiao (quantum optics physicist, c
Re: (Score:2)
An "observer" in the sense they're talking about doesn't need to be a God, intelligent or even sentient. It is just something -- essentially anything -- that interacts.
Logical Proof (Score:2)
1. A rational individual will require proof to believe a claim. I.E. Prove god exists.
2. In the absence of proof, religions argue that faith is all that is necessary. Indeed, that is the point of religion!
3. There is more than one religion that requires faith be used to accept claims without proof. Moreover, these religions contradict each other.
4. When being asked to believe multiple claims without proof of any of them, and the claims are contradictory, it is logical to conclude all of the claims are mi
Re: (Score:1)
#2 is false, and even if it were true, your conclusions in #4 don't logically follow. All you've shown is that you believe something is "logical" when you believe it.
In actual logic, when presented with contradictory claims, you can conclude nothing more about the claims than their being contradictory. A concrete example: Miss X, Miss Y, and Miss Z are sitting together in a bar with you, and all three claim to be the exclusive lover of mine. Their claims are incontrovertibly contradictory. What else can you
Re: (Score:2)
And of course- all three may be your lover- without knowing about the others.
Re: (Score:2)
And to add to my other message- all three may be your lover, without knowing about the others, and due to you being an attentive modern liberal sex-god, you have completely different rituals, traditions, and things you have discussed with each, in accordance with what each one is willing to accept.
I like this analogy, mind if I use it elsewhere?
Re: (Score:1)
I like this analogy, mind if I use it elsewhere?
Be my guest. I did partly go with it for the intended humor value, in that I imagine that the likelihood with which atheists figure there is a god is about the same likelihood that I (or any other Slashdotter/nerd) would/could ever have three women claiming to be my lovers!
attentive modern liberal sex-god
(Yup: Or the chances of my being a player, for that matter.)
Re: (Score:2)
My post was a little sloppy, so your response is unclear, when you say #2 is false, do you mean there is proof, or do you mean religions do not argue that faith is all that is necessary? Or do you mean that isn't the point of religion?
It is necessary, I admit, to explain why I reject the other alternatives:
That one religion(Lover?) might be the one true solution: Simply put, there's nothing out that indicating which one. As another poster above already argued, accepting any one religion opens to the door
Re: (Score:2)
"That one religion(Lover?) might be the one true solution: Simply put, there's nothing out that indicating which one. As another poster above already argued, accepting any one religion opens to the door to the question of why you aren't accepting the others? Indeed, why not Unicorns or Fairies? If you are Christian, why haven't you considered converting it Islam? If you're Muslim, why not give Buddhism a try? There's no objective standard to determine which one is correct."
They're all just alternate explana
Re: (Score:1)
I took it at the time to mean that religions argue that faith is all that is necessary to prove or indicate that god(s) exist. But now I see that you were only saying that religions argue that faith is all that is necessary (in the absence of alternative(s) like proof) to believe a claim. It was late, and I misinterpreted.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, perhaps it was hubris that led me to believe I had inescapable logic - I admit there are holes in the proof, and you can go on irrationally believing without being challenged by me any further.
Especially since from here I'd just devolve into arguments you've undoubtedly heard a half-dozen times already, assuming you've argued about religion on the internet outside this journal entry.
I must know however, are you at least aware of the mindset of the Atheist now? You seem to have gotten it already:
1) Your claim that arriving at one religion should pave the way to arriving at other(s), is based on rationality. But the arrival at any religion is an act of irrationality.
This i
Re: (Score:1)
What I (think I) am aware of is the general nature of religion, and that theists usually don't try to attribute reason to their irrationality, whereas atheists typically always do. So I guess in that sense I've noticed and been aware of the atheist mindset for a long while.
At the risk of irking you one last time, I assert that the "burden of proof" cop-out/ploy favored by atheists is also illogical. In a symmetric relation, such as the range of possible certainties on each side of the issue of whether there
Re: (Score:2)
Another difference between Catholicism and Christianity that I didn't know:
". In my religion there's pressure not to ever have and admit crises of faith."
In Catholicism, it's practically a badge of honor. Mother Theresa, for instance, experienced a nearly 50 year crisis of faith.
Re: (Score:1)
It might due to a combo of the Calvinist influence on Christianity^WProtestantism in general plus an improper application of "by their fruits we shall know them". Where if you show an uncertainty in being "one of us", then the thinking is maybe you aren't (and that maybe that's why the uncertainty).
It also prolly stems from the belief that our relationships with God are individual ones, and that if you and He are "having a problem", that can only be between you and He. Counseling from a pastor is an option,
Re: (Score:2)
Makes me wonder if Mother Theresa ever mentioned it to anybody outside of the journal published long after she was dead.
Of course, if she only mentioned it to her Father Confessor, we shall never know.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, this isn't a symmetric relationship. As I've already given examples of, a large number of religions are demonstrably false. Even of the religions that cannot be proven false (because they make no testable claims), most are definitely false, because any single one being true would cause most of the others to be false.
With the history of false claims over the centuries, religion is resigned to the same sort of place things like cold fusion and perpetual motion go - assumed to be false or a hoa
Re: (Score:2)
Even of the religions that cannot be proven false (because they make no testable claims), most are definitely false, because any single one being true would cause most of the others to be false
What if that untestible claim is that all the other religions are true?
With the history of false claims over the centuries, religion is resigned to the same sort of place things like cold fusion and perpetual motion go - assumed to be false or a hoax until a large body of evidence can be assembled tha
Re: (Score:2)
What.
Re: (Score:2)
Data with an assigned meaning is a "Hypothesis."
The way to argue for your hypothesis is to gather evidence, normally in the form of experiments. Those experiments should be falsifiable (I.E. a negative result indicates disproof of god, in this case) - and repeatable.
Your example stops short of being evidence, merely being one proposed explanation for the complexities of humans. The other main explanation for the complexities of humans (evolution) has a mountain of experimental evidence backing it up, and
Re: (Score:2)
"Those experiments should be falsifiable (I.E. a negative result indicates disproof of god, in this case) - and repeatable."
It just occured to me- part of my problem is that I don't believe human beings are capable of designing falsifiable experiments.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that's the point of this whole message.
Given certain interpretations of quantum physics and certain experiments, plus what we know of the Big Bang, we have a way to arrive at religion through an act of rationality.
The problem, though, is does that make the act of arriving at denial of all religions, irrationality?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the God of the gaps [wikipedia.org] rears its head again.
It's entirely rational to recognize that this exact argument with differing specifics has been put forth, and then proven false with the advancement of scientific knowledge many times.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not quite God of the Gaps, as the Idiot Observer of the Deists.
Quantum physics requires, before Planck Time, an observer to take the indeterminate state of all the little wavicles after the big bang, and insert some information and energy so that the particle fields collapse and we get the universe we know and love.
Call it "Unintelligent Design"- because that observer need not be sentient even at that stage, or for that matter, even complex. A camera would do.