Atheism and Science

Flamed Diving

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

Epicurius's philosophy lives on today: it's called consumerism. He must be proud. Are you a happy little consumer who lines up every Saturday to buy "stuff" from the shopping malls so as to fulfill your every material desires? I'll bet you have a cinema loyalty card, car loan and a subscription to FHM magazine.

You really know when you have handed someones ass to them, when they make statements like this. God bless the internet.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

Without God...

I wanted to make a point about this pic, though.
The second pair, "Is he able, but not willing, Then he is malevolent" make the pic an epic fail. The conclusion "he is malevolent" does not automatically follow from "able, but not willing to prevent evil."

Only if you get into the "evil is necessary for free will" argument, which itself is an epic fail as has been demonstrated many times on this forum.

God allowing evil is no more necessary for free will than allow us to walk on water is necessary for free will.

Theists seem to have such a hard time with that concept due to lack of being able to visualize the world any different from how it is now. They don't realise that God could have made the universe any way he wanted, including a universe here it was impossible to do harm to each other yet still everyone had completely free will.

A good example of this is that he could have created Eden without the tree. Adam and Eve would have still had had complete free will, God would have simply limited their options as he limits everyone's options.

Turtwig

Galvasean wrote: »

I miss Jakkass. Such a polite guy to debate with.

I don't know, I get this weird gut feeling that himself and DL are the same poster. Sure DL's tone comes across as more arrogant (if not condescending) but the style used in dodging questions and doing the barrel-role is very similar - just the tone of voice is all that has really changed. And maybe the more aggressive irrelevant digs too.

Maybe that's cos I miss Jakkass so much too that I'm seeing signs of him everywhere?:(

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

Theists seem to have such a hard time with that concept due to lack of being able to visualize the world any different from how it is now.

I think it's more likely that theists have a hard time with the concept of "free will" because it's a phrase that appears to have no fixed meaning at all, with the instantaneous meaning at any particular time simply being whatever the conversational needs of the moment happen to be.

Just as evolution is the rationalists universal acid, "free will" seems to be the theists' universal jelly.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

Only if you get into the "evil is necessary for free will" argument, which itself is an epic fail as has been demonstrated many times on this forum.

God allowing evil is no more necessary for free will than allow us to walk on water is necessary for free will.

Theists seem to have such a hard time with that concept due to lack of being able to visualize the world any different from how it is now. They don't realise that God could have made the universe any way he wanted, including a universe here it was impossible to do harm to each other yet still everyone had completely free will.

A good example of this is that he could have created Eden without the tree. Adam and Eve would have still had had complete free will, God would have simply limited their options as he limits everyone's options.

I wouldn't say we have completely free will. I know what you mean but that term could confuse the issue. The only way to have completely free will is to be omnipotent and it seems that by the christian definition even an omnipotent being is constrained by some things so there is no such thing as completely free will, it's all constrained to some extent. And since god has created a universe where my free will to fly to America by flapping my arms is constrained as is the free will of a weak person to fight against a stronger person as is my free will to see through the wall of the girls changing rooms as are an infinite number of other things where a person would like to do something but is constrained by circumstances or the god given laws of physics, there is no reason why god couldn’t have constrained our ability to harm others and still allowed us free will. One good example would have been making our bodies a lot less vulnerable than they are now. The only reason a bullet to the head will kill me is that god decided to make me a body that’s vulnerable to headshots.

Flamed Diving

Malty_T wrote: »

I don't know, I get this weird gut feeling that himself and DL are the same poster. Sure DL's tone comes across as more arrogant (if not condescending) but the style used in dodging questions and doing the barrel-role is very similar - just the tone of voice is all that has really changed. And maybe the more aggressive irrelevant digs too.

Maybe that's cos I miss Jakkass so much too that I'm seeing signs of him everywhere?:(

I saw an image of Jakkass in my toast, this morning...

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I wouldn't say we have completely free will. I know what you mean but that term could confuse the issue. The only way to have completely free will is to be omnipotent and it seems that by the christian definition even an omnipotent being is constrained by some things so there is no such thing as completely free will, it's all constrained to some extent. And since god has created a universe where my free will to fly to America by flapping my arms is constrained as is the free will of a weak person to fight against a stronger person as is my free will to see through the wall of the girls changing rooms as are an infinite number of other things where a person would like to do something but is constrained by circumstances or the god given laws of physics, there is no reason why god couldn’t have constrained our ability to harm others and still allowed us free will. One good example would have been making our bodies a lot less vulnerable than they are now. The only reason a bullet to the head will kill me is that god decided to make me a body that’s vulnerable to headshots.

Yeah, sorry, that was my point. Could have been clearer.

As you say we don't have complete free will now. God, through the laws of nature and how he built us, has constrained what we can do in huge number of ways.

Creating a universe devoid of the ability to harm each other would not constrain us any further than God has constrained us now.

The idea that if God removed suffering or harm we would be robots is an epic fail idea (I like that phrase :P)

tba

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah, sorry, that was my point. Could have been clearer.

As you say we don't have complete free will now. God, through the laws of nature and how he built us, has constrained what we can do in huge number of ways.

Creating a universe devoid of the ability to harm each other would not constrain us any further than God has constrained us now.

The idea that if God removed suffering or harm we would be robots is an epic fail idea (I like that phrase :P)

Especially since the only actual "crime" that is not forgiven is not believing in/loving god which we would still be perfectly capable of doing.

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Especially since the only actual "crime" that is not forgiven is not believing in/loving god which we would still be perfectly capable of doing.

True, if you think that all evil comes from "sin" (a concept I never really understood, but there you go) it makes no sense that God has given you to have a body that burns or drowns.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

True, if you think that all evil comes from "sin" (a concept I never really understood, but there you go)

Interesting -- you're a woolly liberal who doesn't know right from wrong! Quick, find a Tea Party!

More seriously, the idea of "sin" and the more generic "evil" has been studied by anthropologists and it turns out, unsurprisingly, that a lot of what christians think is peculiar to their own religious worldview is in fact something that they share with many other cultures.

Basically, a "sin" is a violation of god's law, or a specific interpretation of god's law. Or in more general cultural terms, it turns out that it's usually a violation of a more general concept called "ritual purity", the intentional state that one needs to be in order to emulate, approach or consider one's view of the divine.

Jonathon Haidt did an interesting, short talk on this a while back for the New Yorker. While I think he's slightly off-mark in some respects of how he claims "liberals" think, I think he's certainly pretty accurate in describing how "conservatives" think, and how that's described by a fairly simple cognitive model:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/video/conference/2007/haidt

Ickle Magoo

chozometroid wrote: »

To use your Spiderman analogy, if God intervened and stopped the bullet, then Spiderman would not have learned a life-changing lesson, and would not have turned out to be the unstoppable driven superhero he is today. :pac:
Allowing evil is allowing free will, and it also allows man to see that he does in fact need God. God is just, so any evil will be recompensed.

ie It's also a great get out clause to explain why there is an uncanny lack of intervention - almost as if god wasn't there, you could say....

Sam Vimes

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

ie It's also a great get out clause to explain why there is an uncanny lack of intervention - almost as if god wasn't there, you could say....

Reminds me of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HE79YwImPY

Ickle Magoo

Oh dear, I lol'd a lot, thanks Sam!

Antbert

Malty_T wrote: »

I don't know, I get this weird gut feeling that himself and DL are the same poster. Sure DL's tone comes across as more arrogant (if not condescending) but the style used in dodging questions and doing the barrel-role is very similar - just the tone of voice is all that has really changed. And maybe the more aggressive irrelevant digs too.

Maybe that's cos I miss Jakkass so much too that I'm seeing signs of him everywhere?:(

So harsh!

I cannot believe this DL guy is still posting... Someone referred him here from After Hours. I'm going to find and harrass that person.

bogwalrus

Malty_T wrote: »

Indeed, many atheists are big into the irrational pseudo science of pseudoclimatology and pseudo immunology. That's why I don't like calling myself under the broad term of "atheist".

Do you think we could trade the term "atheist" for the term "scientologist"? it seems like a better suiting word. We could throw in a couple of quid and it should be a done deal.

bogwalrus

Wicknight wrote: »

A good example of this is that he could have created Eden without the tree. Adam and Eve would have still had had complete free will, God would have simply limited their options as he limits everyone's options.

Its like the "0" on a roulette table.

eightyfish

I am in the final year of a science degree. Nobody in my class aside from one student believes in God. Nobody in any of the previous years who dropped out did either.

I used to be a Sound Engineering student, and then (briefly) a teacher. Nobody in those classes believed in God.

Simeltaniously to that, I was a barman. Only one of my fellow bar staff believed in God.

Before all that, I sold and fixed computers. No other staff members believed or talked in a positive way about religion.

It's not just a science thing- it is, thankfully, everywhere.

Rev Hellfire

It'll be interesting to see out of all those unbelievers how many get married in a church and have their kids baptised.

Casual atheists they're as bad as the casual Catholics they complain about.

Ickle Magoo

In fairness many atheists marry and have children with theists and so cutting religion out of a shared wedding day and shared children is an impossibility, I don't think it lessons the atheists atheism any. I was lucky, I married and had kids with a fellow atheist so church weddings or baptisms wasn't something I had to compromise on.

Flamed Diving

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

It'll be interesting to see out of all those unbelievers how many get married in a church and have their kids baptised.

Casual atheists they're as bad as the casual Catholics they complain about.

:)Wow, I just love the way you make such complex social problems seem so easy to understand. Tell me some more!:)

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Casual atheists they're as bad as the casual Catholics they complain about.

What the heck is a casual atheist? A person who lacks a belief in god(s) that doesn't follow atheist doctrine*?

* Does not exist

ChocolateSauce

eightyfish wrote: »

I am in the final year of a science degree. Nobody in my class aside from one student believes in God. Nobody in any of the previous years who dropped out did either.

True about science classes- this morning I was waiting for my symmetry and spectroscopy class to begin and someone asked someone else if they were religious. It being a small class, everyone gave an answer: Not one person in my 20 strong class claimed to believe in god, and most affirmed they didn't.

Zombrex

bogwalrus wrote: »

Do you think we could trade the term "atheist" for the term "scientologist"? it seems like a better suiting word. We could throw in a couple of quid and it should be a done deal.

good idea .. I'll register the domain name ... oh, funny looks like someone has already done that ... :pac:

Rev Hellfire

Dades wrote: »

What the heck is a casual atheist? A person who lacks a belief in god(s) that doesn't follow atheist doctrine*?

I was merely suggesting perhaps rather too obliquely that pop quizzes such as most of my class mates say there’re don’t believe in god aren’t really good indicators.
The very same ‘atheists’ will be accused later of been ‘catholic’ when it suits them, ie the causal catholic we hear so much about.

Most people in my humble opinion are rather fluid in their theism and atheism these days, picking one or other positions when it suits them.

Though I’ll endeavour to be more direct in my accusations in future

DogmaticLefty

Dades wrote: »

* Does not exist

You mean you just haven't discovered it yet (probably explains the speckled nature of atheist belief).

Flamed Diving

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

speckled nature of atheist belief

Ickle Magoo

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

You mean you just haven't discovered it yet (probably explains the speckled nature of atheist belief).

I see you still seem to be having some difficulty with the basic terminology, perhaps a quick read of a dictionary could help you?

Atheism isn't a belief; it's a lack of belief. Atheism doesn't have a doctrine because the only thing you have to do to warrant holding the title of atheist, is have a lack of belief in god(s). There is no common teachings, instructions or principles shared in order to be or be called atheist.

DogmaticLefty

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

There is no common teachings, instructions or principles shared in order to be or be called atheist.

Atheism is an ad-hoc network of belief from which patterns emerge. Most religions are organised in top-down hierarchies.

It's all too convenient for atheists to just throw their hands in the air and exclaim "but we're not a religion", "there is no common teaching", etc. I see it all the time. I don't know how anyone can base their lives around such vast uncertainty. The denial of the Divine is another common trait amongst atheists. When a Christian looks into a telescope he sees God's beauty. When an atheist looks at the sky, he pulls out his calculator and gets to work on all the problems he doesn't know the answer to yet. Might as well top yourselves now cos a lifetime divided by the lifetime of the universe tends to nothing.

Turtwig

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

Atheism is an ad-hoc network of belief from which patterns emerge. Most religions are organised in top-down hierarchies.

It's all too convenient for atheists to just throw their hands in the air and exclaim "but we're not a religion", "there is no common teaching", etc. I see it all the time. I don't know how anyone can base their lives around such vast uncertainty. The denial of the Divine is another common trait amongst atheists. When a Christian looks into a telescope he sees God's beauty. When an atheist looks at the sky, he pulls out his calculator and gets to work on all the problems he doesn't know the answer to yet. Might as well top yourselves now cos a lifetime divided by the lifetime of the universe tends to nothing.

I know I'm probably going to get infracted for this, but as my first (and hopefully only) ever infraction it will be worth it:

You sir, are an idiot of the highest order. Your arrogance and ignorance know no bounds! The very least you could have done is try to communicate with us and understand what atheism actually is.

Apologies to Dades and Rob.