When atheists go too far

philologos wrote: »

You're still basing the assumption that science is the only valid means of inquiry. This simply isn't true for a lot of people, including many scientists.

There is no such thing as true for some. Are you saying that truth is group dependent? If so you need your head fixed.

philologos wrote: »

There is a case for God but it involves philosophy, history, archaeology, textual analysis, cosmology, human nature and so on, but it isn't confined to natural science. So I'm not going to argue on that basis. If you wish to hold that assumption that's up to you. I think it's royally invalid.

I guess your view must lead you to think that the aforenamed disciplines are useless?

What's useless is you pigeon-holing the value of science. The process of which I see as being this. You never answered the questions in that post interestingly. Why not?

The list of disciplines you mentioned above are hodgepodge of hypotheses that are rejected by the scientific method because other hypothesis had higher probability and explanatory power(another topic you always ignore when I bring it up). Oh by the study of human nature and the answers generated come from science, how could it come from anywhere else?

philologos wrote: »

The rest of your point is actually quite reasonable. Just because a scientist is Christian doesn't mean that their science is proof of God's existence. That's entirely fair.

What I was interested in replying to was your claim that my post was closer to an argument from authority. My point wasn't that Christian scientists prove God, but rather that one can be Christian and scientifically minded. I felt you may not have understood my point fully hence why I clarified it.

Indeed, but the reason I felt it important to point out what I did is that people might mistakenly think that being both Christian and scientifically minded means that one in ANY way supports the other.

In fact since neither support the other really, pointing out that people are Christian and scientifically minded at the same time merely shows that people are capable of holding completely different ideas in their head that in no way have any support for each other, and in fact in some ways contradict each other entirely (virgin births, human flight without the aid of technology and so forth) but they can still hold both, and still subscribe to both.

In short therefore, at the end of the day there really is absolutely no relevance to pointing out that people can be both Christian and scientifically minded. It says nothing about science. It says nothing about the existance of god. It therefore bears no relevance to the actual discussion about god.

Again I am not aware of having made any such claim. Again I ask you to quote me making such a claim. Again I tire of having you reply to things I never said. Again I want to point out you doing this because I think it important people know what kind of character you are.

At no point did I say science is the only discipline that can determine truth. In fact I have on numerous (now countless) posts asked you and people like you for more than just science to support the idea there is a god. My actual words repeatedly are do you have any "arguments, evidence, data OR reasons" to support the claim which clearly is not limiting you to science.

philologos wrote: »

CerebralCortex: Then we're at an impasse. If you think that science is the only discipline that can determine truth that's your prerogative but I wholly disagree. There's not much more we can discuss until that disagreement is ironed out

Well I'm happy and confident to say it's the only method that has.

philologos wrote: »

My point was simply that being scientifically minded does not preclude you from being a Christian. That's pretty obvious as far as I see it.

It does if you choose to be scientific about it. Science, it's discoveries and religion in general are incompatible.

Tigerbaby wrote: »

I thought the following applied;

1. Atheist = There is no God

2. Agnostic = There is no proof for a God/ I'm not sure.

Now I had this discussion with one of my saplings recently, and we basically collided. *Everything* became lost in translation. I argued that getting into the areas of "God", "after death" and metaphysics in general, that she could not use the tools of logic, reason or personal imperial deduction. All of these tools are based on the 5 physical senses. When one dies or goes beyond this material World even momentarily, all physical measurements become redundant.

Thus, anyone who proclaims from on high that there is no God becomes every bit as faulted and rabid as any Bible-basher. They are trying to disprove the existence of something which cannot be assessed using the tools of the senses. I find both types of fundamentalist tiresome and immature.

Its like trying to explain yellow to a blind person. One can only convey ones own subjective experience of "yellow", not a subjective and definitive truth.

cheers.

nb.. Chesterton "Those who believe in nothing will end up believing in anything"

Agnosticism, is not a theological position, it is merely just a position that certain values of knowledge are unknowable. You could for instance be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist, or you could even be agnostic on the whole vitamin C is good for you. Atheism can be approached in two ways. The first way is the idea that it is the rejection of theism. The second is that it is the lack of belief in a deity.

So let's look at yourself for a second, if you were brought up a theist and self identified as one, but no longer do then you are an atheist because you have rejected theism. If, however, you were brought up devoid of theism then applying the second definition is probably all we can do. However, the second definition runs into an infinite number of problems. Should I also describe you as a non stamp collector, non bug collector, non flat earthist, non believer in the purity of cow's farts, non African, non Chinese .... ad infinitum? Describing someone as not being something else is just utterly useless.

"Since when did weight of numbers or bodycount mean anything?" This is in a nutshell why "atheism" actually exists today. It is the privilege of the religious that has led to such a term being used. We have no other "not a " labels. Really, knowing someone is an atheist tells you almost nothing about their beliefs. They reject theism, or they don't have theistic beliefs but what use is that to telling us something more about what an atheist actually believes?

None of this changes the fact, however, that just like the person who doesn't collect stamps is called as non stamp collector, you are an atheist because you do no believe in a God. Even if you have nothing else in common with other atheist human beings the world over. You are an atheist, simple as. And by sounds of things an ignostic one.

Finally, when it comes to supernatural claims, or indeed any claim. The proponent of the claim has to prove it, the person who disagrees with it only has to cast reasonable doubt and solid critique on the claimants claims. That's all they can ever do because you can't disprove anything. If you were on trial for a crime you most probably didn't commit I'd like to think you'd be fairly ticked off at the suggestion that you had to disprove your guilt. In a similar way, I think God doesn't probably exist, I see no reason why I have to disprove to the religious person why I'm not under threat of burning in fire and brimstone for all eternity.

In fairness there are tonnes of scientists out there who hold what others may consider to be bizarre or whacky beliefs. Even some of the greats, held such bizarre beliefs. They're just human at the end of the day.

I personally see no problem with a God belief. Or for that matter most superstitions. The problem comes with the extra baggage that religion applies to such beliefs. But then, I can't see how it's possible to have one without the other.

bluewolf wrote: »

I'm mostly with you guys but then when you start talking about a mental virus...

Yeah I don't like that virus reference either. But, hey, wofly as a rationalist, you should be aware that whether you like the sound of something or not has no bearing on it being true or false.:) So, um yeah it could very possibly be a virus, but I think even if it is we should never actually mention it.;)

bluewolf wrote: »

I'm mostly with you guys but then when you start talking about a mental virus...

I like the virus analogy, it's very fitting! Started off locally, spread like wild fire, killed indiscriminately and left a lot of survivors in a bad way. It's a global pandemic - if only there were little bottles of gel you could buy to help fend it off!

bluewolf wrote: »

I'm mostly with you guys but then when you start talking about a mental virus...

Malty_T wrote: »

So, um yeah it could very possibly be a virus, but I think even if it is we should never actually mention it.;)

It is worth mentioning for a few reasons. The main one is that if you want to study anything, the first step is to understand what it is. If it is a kind of mental virus then we need to explore that and understand if it is, or any study of religion is likely to fail from the outset.

Consider it analogous to a doctor and a patient. If the doctor does not know what the problem is, how can he study, diagnose and treat it? The one symptom could be of a LACK in something the patient should have (a vitamin or mineral say) or the PRESENCE of something they should not have (virus or bacteria).

Clearly vitamins will not treat a virus and anti biotics will not cure a mineral deficiency.

Viruses are just tiny pieces of barely alive information that have evolved to exploit aspects of the human condition to their own “ends” which is simply and solely to reproduce copies of themselves. Often a virus will cause a seemingly inexplicable expenditure of energy in the host. Why for example in a field do we sometimes see ants trying to climb and climb a blade of grass? It keeps falling but it keeps trying. There is a massive use of energy here, with seemingly no benefit, and eventually the ant even gets eaten in the vulnerable position on the grass.

The reason is it is just a fluke. A lancet fluke, which is using the ant to get into the cows that eat the grass. The fluke does this for no reason other than to get itself reproduced.

The idea there is a god too is just an idea, and one that no one appears able to substantiate in even the smallest way. It is just some information and it also causes massive expenditure of time money and energy in the host. It has done for much of our history. It too can be seen as a piece of information that simply exploits aspects of our mind (such as our evolved “intentional stance” to name but one of many human attributes) to cause us to produce copies of it and pass them on to other hosts.

Therefore, like the term “virus” or not, it is not an entirely inaccurate analogy and label to use.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I liked the bit about the possibility that we are in fact in a computer simulation, he argues that basically when you look at anything closely enough it is digital in nature and therefore likely to be artificial! The theory goes that there is a creator but he's probably a geek in a futuristic basement playing with his computer.
I had this picture of an 18 year old "god" making the universe whilst cursing his internet connection and waiting for some interactive holographic orgy to load from future redtube:D

There have been some fun ideas put out there involving creators that have absolutely no idea that we are here. That the universe was formed by such creator(s) for a different purpose. For example the universe seems to create black holes pretty efficiently… maybe this universe is a black hole making machine, and we are just an unexpected byproduct such as the bacteria on our planet which have recently evolved to feed on clothing polymers that were not invented 100 years ago.

There is also no reason to think that time goes the same for us as it would for such creator(s). Picture the people at CERN right now trying to make singularities. If we create one and record it’s existence for a mere split second, how are we to know that an entire universe did not live, expand and die in that time? Our own universe with it’s billions upon billions of years of age, might just be a failed 1 second CERN experiment for someone else, somewhere else. Perhaps in a split second of success at our CERN we were entirely unaware of the rise and fall of entire civilizations that built religions on the existence of CERN scientists.

The crux of those postulations Is that the creator(s) are entirely oblivious to our existence. Of course such postulations may be fun, but have no evidence or credence. They also do not answer any questions as the same questions we ask now about where we all came from would still have to be asked of them and their universe. But such places do our minds like to go when we give them free reign. They are infinitely more interesting however than the arrogance and narcissism involved in thinking that this entire universe, with all it's size, age and complexity was created for US and that the creator entity loves each one of us individually and listens to our prayers and obsesses over who we have sex with and in what positions.

ScumLord wrote: »

I liked the recent one where an anaesthesiologist is now saying the human brain is in fact a quantum computer that could use space outside the brain for extra computational power and giving us that link to the universe we're sure we feel we have.

Well if he used the word Quantum it MUST be true. Everyone knows when people like... say.... Deepak Chopra use the word Quantum it is because it is all true. I am still waiting for Quantum Homeopathy. That stuff will work where normal Homeopathy does not.

Was the guy with the helmet Indian with a super cool accent by any chance? It sounds like some work done by a guy I have a lot of time for.

Yea one of my intellectual heros of late. I think I have watched everything he has on You tube and my next Book list (I buy books in batches) includes everything he has written. His work is just massively interesting.

The reason I mentioned him in the context of the god helmet is that one of his discoveries is very interesting. He discovered that some people after brain damage seem perfectly ok in ALL ways except that suddenly they think… for example… that someone has replaced their mother with an imposter mother.

Upon further study he discovered that we have a part of our brain dedicated solely to attributing importance to certain people, places and objects. Sometimes damage can severe the link between that area and some thing of importance to us.

So the patient is looking at their mother and thinking “This looks and sounds right… but that is not my mother” and the reason is that they are not feeling the familiar feelings of importance, relevance and closeness associated with the mother. For want of a better word the "connection" between the patient and their mum was lost.

He further discovered that certain drugs, experiences or magnetic interference of the god helmet type can cause links to be formed from that area to areas it should not be connected to. This explains why people under such influences suddenly feel they are connected to everything, everything is important, is is all joined together in “god” and all sorts of thoughts of that nature.

It is remarkably interesting stuff and explains a lot of the experiences of yogis and mystics when they come out of living in caves in solitude spouting how everything is important and connected and we are all connected in a united love and all this kind of thing.

I could waste hours of my life reading this guys papers on such things, let alone his you tube talks and now later his books.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well if he used the word Quantum it MUST be true. Everyone knows when people like... say.... Deepak Chopra use the word Quantum it is because it is all true. I am still waiting for Quantum Homeopathy. That stuff will work where normal Homeopathy does not.

Believe it or not there is an entire journal dedicated to Quantum Homeopathy. I couldn't be arsed googling it but if you believe the internet every pseudo quackery belief has its roots in delocalisation.
Newscientist had a hilarious article on it. I'll see if I can dig it up.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I so knew when I had my tounge in my cheek and I said that... that it would turn out it actually existed!

I was pretty sure it would be you who would point it out too

Maybe we need a Rule 34 for bull****...