From today I can call myself an atheist

Galvasean · 04-05-2011 01:23PM

ghostchant wrote: »

It's probably worth noting that he won the Nobel Prize for his work on the photoelectric effect, where he put forward the quantised description of light (photons). That's certainly more than I've done in the field of QM!

Please stop appealing to authority. It gets us nowhere.
It would be like me saying, "Stephen Hawking believes the universe made itself and he's smarter than all of us put together so who are you to disagree with him?"

ghostchant · 04-05-2011 03:12PM

Galvasean wrote: »

Please stop appealing to authority. It gets us nowhere.
It would be like me saying, "Stephen Hawking believes the universe made itself and he's smarter than all of us put together so who are you to disagree with him?"

I'm not appealing to authority, I'm not even in the debate! I don't care what Einstein says about his beliefs any more than I care about the beliefs of any member of this forum. Einstein was wrong about QM on a philosophical level but his contribution to QM from a scientific point of view was non-trivial to say the least. Incidentally, regarding their interpretations of QM, Einstein and Bohr were both 'wrong', but in different ways.

Boulevardier · 04-05-2011 03:57PM

Oh for God's sake (I mean Supreme being's sake) people, nobody is "appealing to authority."

I was only demonstrating that some people with a strong grasp of, and proven track record in, physics and cosmology think the same way I do, and nobody ever seems to have asked them for evidence or proof, or implied that they were being unscientific.

Turtwig · 04-05-2011 04:14PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

Oh for God's sake (I mean Supreme being's sake) people, nobody is "appealing to authority."

I was only demonstrating that some people with a strong grasp of, and proven track record in, physics and cosmology think the same way I do, and nobody ever seems to have asked them for evidence or proof, or implied that they were being unscientific.

.º.
/\
You

---> The Point being made.

oldrnwisr · 04-05-2011 05:47PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

Oh for God's sake (I mean Supreme being's sake) people, nobody is "appealing to authority."

I was only demonstrating that some people with a strong grasp of, and proven track record in, physics and cosmology think the same way I do, and nobody ever seems to have asked them for evidence or proof, or implied that they were being unscientific.

Of course you are. Maybe you should look up appeal to authority.

Appeal to Authority

Who cares if an "expert" in a particular field thinks the same way you do? You still haven't provided any evidence for your claim (and I suspect you're not going to).

As for asking them for evidence or proof, it would be pretty hard to ask Einstein for proof of his position, wouldn't it? Secondly, we don't usually get top particle physicists or biologists wandering into the A&A forum and making bull**** claims about deism being a reasonable position without any evidence or reasoning for that position.

Finally, of course these people are being unscientific if they claim that there is a God without any evidence to show for it. Somehow though these people manage to section off god from the rest of their views, which is why we have the fallacy of special pleading.

mikhail · 04-05-2011 08:48PM

Malty_T wrote: »

.º.
/\
You

---> The Point being made.

Traditionally, that goes the other way around, with the point going over his head. Or am I missing something?

The o clouds
   /|\                          the point
Me /'\

Boulevardier · 05-05-2011 05:29PM

Oldernwisr, I think you are a little rattled, otherwise your response would not be quite so petulant.

I repeat my point: Einstein beleived the same things as I do, but he was respected by all. If that is an appeal to authority, so be it.

Sorry, what are these odd diacritics in recent postings? I have no idea what they represent.

oldrnwisr · 05-05-2011 05:43PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

Oldernwisr, I think you are a little rattled, otherwise your response would not be quite so petulant.

I repeat my point: Einstein beleived the same things as I do, but he was respected by all. If that is an appeal to authority, so be it.

Sorry, what are these odd diacritics in recent postings? I have no idea what they represent.

I'm not rattled in the slightest, certainly not by people who make baseless assertions.

It's true that I might have been petulant but then this is a discussion board and when someone asks you for reasons and evidence for your position then it is expected that you provide some such reason. Otherwise, why did you bother to post in the first place?

You have repeatedly ignored questions put to you by many posters about explaining your opening position which tends to frustrate people. Either you are interested in meaningful debate or you should post your delusions somewhere else.

I don't think given your post though that any debate is going to be possible. The fact that Einstein may have been a deist is not evidence for your position. Until you understand that you have no business engaging in this or any discussion.

Boulevardier · 05-05-2011 06:02PM

Wohoho. OK, What is it you want? Reasons to evidence my position? OK, beyond what Einstein says about "dimly suspecting" as Einstein puts it, I have none. It is not a matter capable of scientific proof.

If you look up at the night sky and find no reason to "dimly suspect" anything greater than blind chance, I cannot help you.

Anyway, what are those symbols?

Turtwig · 05-05-2011 06:03PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

Wohoho. OK, What is it you want? Reasons to evidence my position? OK, beyond what Einstein says about "dimly suspecting" as Einstein puts it, I have none. It is not a matter capable of scientific proof.

If you look up at the night sky and find no reason to "dimly suspect" anything greater than blind chance, I cannot help you.

Anyway, what are those symbols?

Hold on, let's a rewind a bit, what do you mean by "blind chance"?

oldrnwisr · 05-05-2011 07:11PM

Malty_T wrote: »

Hold on, let's a rewind a bit, what do you mean by "blind chance"?

+1

Boulevardier wrote: »

Wohoho. OK, What is it you want? Reasons to evidence my position? OK, beyond what Einstein says about "dimly suspecting" as Einstein puts it, I have none. It is not a matter capable of scientific proof.

First off, if you had left out the highlighted part, your statement would have been better. Whatever Einstein said about God is not evidence.

Let's leave the term proof out of it. I'm not talking about absolute proof, I'm just asking for some evidence. Your claim must at least be testable, otherwise there's no way to distinguish between it being true and being false. If you can't provide any evidence for a God then why do you assert that one exists?

Boulevardier wrote: »

If you look up at the night sky and find no reason to "dimly suspect" anything greater than blind chance, I cannot help you.

Let's not swap one logical fallacy for another, shall we. Just because you don't understand cosmology doesn't mean you can assert it was blind chance. Try watching Wonders of the Universe or Cosmos before you make such a statement.

Boulevardier wrote: »

Anyway, what are those symbols?

I think that's a question for the people who posted them, not me.

Boulevardier · 05-05-2011 07:48PM

OK, I have no evidence. I never meant to say I did have any. If this is about needing evidence, you win.

Turtwig · 05-05-2011 07:53PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

OK, I have no evidence. I never meant to say I did have any. If this is about needing evidence, you win.

This shouldn't be about winning or losing, it should about be communication.

oldrnwisr · 05-05-2011 08:08PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

OK, I have no evidence. I never meant to say I did have any. If this is about needing evidence, you win.

Winning is not what it's about. I'd much rather discuss the reasons why you think deism is reasonable or why you think that blind chance is involved in the universe than have a concession of defeat. I think that critical thinking is important and that we should all examine the reasons and the evidence for believing the things we do.

To paraphrase Jean-Luc Picard, this discussion board is a crucible. In it we burn away irrelevancies until we are left with a pure product, the truth, for all time. (One of my fave episodes too, particularly Guinan's speech)

We may not get as far as truth but we all may learn something if we make an effort to determine fact from fantasy.

Boulevardier · 05-05-2011 08:36PM

All I've really got is a feeling that there must be something greater out there. Anyone with a good Ockham's triple-blade razor would probably slice me up pretty quick.

Then again, Jean-Luc must also have read Conan Doyle. Sherlock Holmes said that when impossible solutions have been eliminated then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

CerebralCortex · 06-05-2011 12:23AM

Boulevardier wrote: »

All I've really got is a feeling that there must be something greater out there. Anyone with a good Ockham's triple-blade razor would probably slice me up pretty quick.

Then again, Jean-Luc must also have read Conan Doyle. Sherlock Holmes said that when impossible solutions have been eliminated then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

I hate it when people quote fiction as something philosophically profound.

robindch · 06-05-2011 12:33AM

Boulevardier wrote: »

All I've really got is a feeling that there must be something greater out there.

Nothing strange about that -- almost everybody has this feeling and a chap named Michael Persinger has investigated it quite extensively, with results that many people find provocative, especially those with beliefs that could best be described as deistic. Persinger's wiki page is here:

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

Gordon · 06-05-2011 12:38AM

Boulevardier wrote: »

All I've really got is a feeling that there must be something greater out there.

There is: You. Don't settle for second best.

robindch · 06-05-2011 12:41AM

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Winning is not what it's about.

The dialectic!

oldrnwisr wrote: »

To paraphrase Jean-Luc Picard, this discussion board is a crucible. In it we burn away irrelevancies until we are left with a pure product, the truth, for all time. (One of my fave episodes too, particularly Guinan's speech)

Which episode is that? Been years since I've watched TNG, but in between the redshirts and cardboard scenery, it and TOS included a lot of smart thinking.

Turtwig · 06-05-2011 12:50AM

robindch wrote: »

The dialectic!

Posts like that above are why I love this forum. I've learned so much from you guys, it's fantastic!:D Specific Terminologies, interesting science, logical fallacies, I could go on. And some people wonder why we in post in a forum?:rolleyes:

oldrnwisr · 06-05-2011 08:42AM

robindch wrote: »

The dialectic!

Thanks for that Robin. This is what I mean about learning something along the way.

robindch wrote: »

Which episode is that? Been years since I've watched TNG, but in between the redshirts and cardboard scenery, it and TOS included a lot of smart thinking.

S2E09, Measure of a Man. One of those Picard flexing his intellectual muscles episodes like Season 4's The Drumhead. Great episode.

ghostchant · 06-05-2011 10:42AM

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I hate it when people quote fiction as something philosophically profound.

Fiction can't be philosophically profound? You learn something new every day!

Shenshen · 06-05-2011 02:29PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

All I've really got is a feeling that there must be something greater out there. Anyone with a good Ockham's triple-blade razor would probably slice me up pretty quick.

Then again, Jean-Luc must also have read Conan Doyle. Sherlock Holmes said that when impossible solutions have been eliminated then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

I always wondered at what point you would come to the conclusion that all impossible solutions actually have been eliminated?

I've been on this planet for a good few decades now, and the longer I'm here the more possible and impossible scenarios and solutions of all kinds seem to present themselves.

Dades · 06-05-2011 03:41PM

robindch wrote: »

The dialectic!

Damned Scientologists!

Joking aside, I think something like Deism is outside the realm of the dialectic method. The notion is so vague and shiftable as to be incapable of being cornered.

However, whereas you will never be able to write off Deism as an concept, you can at least rationally address the reasons why people hold that position.

Also I have man-flu and seasons 4&5 of TNG on DVD. A plan is formulating in my head.

Boulevardier · 06-05-2011 04:10PM

"However, whereas you will never be able to write off Deism as an concept, you can at least rationally address the reasons why people hold that position"

I presume we can apply that to a lot of belief systems including atheism as well.

Otherwise, you are pathologising my beliefs, which I would find rather arrogant and more than a little offensive.

oldrnwisr · 06-05-2011 04:27PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

"However, whereas you will never be able to write off Deism as an concept, you can at least rationally address the reasons why people hold that position"

I presume we can apply that to a lot of belief systems including atheism as well.

Otherwise, you are pathologising my beliefs, which I would find rather arrogant and more than a little offensive.

Atheism is not a belief system (or a religion, worldview, ideology, faith etc.)

The point (I think) Dades was making is that the weakness of other belief systems is their level of detail. Christianity for example has such a complex theology that refuting it as a literal truth is easier than Deism which is so vague that it is almost indefinable.

Boulevardier · 06-05-2011 04:31PM

Atheism is a belief. Please do not pretend it is other than that.

Turtwig · 06-05-2011 04:35PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

Atheism is a belief. Please do not pretend it is other than that.

What do you call a human being who grows up in a desolate area and never hears of the concept of a God or Gods? An atheist, only problem is of course this person has never been aware of the God concept so how can his/her atheism be a form of belief? If that's the case then every human has beliefs about an infinite number of concepts they aren't even aware of. Atheism isn't necessarily a belief. It sometimes is; it sometimes isn't.

Zombrex · 06-05-2011 04:36PM

Gordon wrote: »

There is: You. Don't settle for second best.

As Dustin Hoffman would say "You are Lisa Simpson"

oldrnwisr · 06-05-2011 04:38PM

Boulevardier wrote: »

Atheism is a belief. Please do not pretend it is other than that.

No, no, no. Atheism is not a belief. Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims that have not met their burden of proof. It is the answer to one question:

Do you believe in God?

No.

That's all there is to it. There are no requirements for atheism other than not believing in God.

From today I can call myself an atheist

Comments